Page last updated: 2024-10-24

celecoxib and Disease Exacerbation

celecoxib has been researched along with Disease Exacerbation in 92 studies

Research Excerpts

ExcerptRelevanceReference
"Oxylipins derived from arachidonic acid (ARA) have been implicated in the development of colorectal adenomas and colorectal cancer."9.41A Protective Role for Arachidonic Acid Metabolites against Advanced Colorectal Adenoma in a Phase III Trial of Selenium. ( Chew, WM; Chow, HS; Ellis, NA; Jacobs, ET; Lance, P; Martinez, JA; Saboda, K; Skiba, MB, 2021)
"Preclinical results showing therapeutic effect and low toxicity of metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (Cy) + celecoxib (Cel) for mammary tumors encouraged its translation to the clinic for treating advanced breast cancer patients (ABCP)."9.22Metastatic breast cancer patients treated with low-dose metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and celecoxib: clinical outcomes and biomarkers of response. ( Alasino, CM; Mainetti, LE; Perroud, HA; Pezzotto, SM; Queralt, F; Rico, MJ; Rozados, VR; Scharovsky, OG, 2016)
"We investigated the effect of celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase 2, in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)."9.17Effects of celecoxib on hematoma and edema volumes in primary intracerebral hemorrhage: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. ( Bae, HJ; Chung, JW; Han, MK; Jung, KH; Kim, CK; Kwon, HM; Lee, JS; Lee, SH; Lee, YS; Park, ES; Park, HK; Roh, JK; Ryu, WS, 2013)
" A Phase-II study was undertaken to determine the activity of a dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with advanced colorectal cancer."9.13Phase-II study of dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and celecoxib in advanced colorectal cancer. ( El-Rayes, BF; Ferris, AM; Heilbrun, LK; Manza, SG; Philip, PA; Rusin, B; Shields, AF; Vaishampayan, U; Venkatramanamoorthy, R; Zalupski, MM, 2008)
"COX-2 activation may mediate capecitabine induced toxicities, eg, hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and colorectal cancer progression, both of which may be improved by concurrent celecoxib."9.12Retrospective study of capecitabine and celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer: potential benefits and COX-2 as the common mediator in pain, toxicities and survival? ( Ayers, GD; Brown, T; Crane, CC; Curley, SA; Delcos, M; Feig, B; Janjan, N; Lin, EH; Morris, J; Rodriguez-Bigas, MA; Ross, A; Skibber, J; Vadhan, SR, 2006)
"Celecoxib use during chemotherapy adversely affected survival in patients with breast cancer, and the effect was more marked in PTGS2-low and/or estrogen receptor-negative tumors."7.91Celecoxib With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Might Worsen Outcomes Differentially by COX-2 Expression and ER Status: Exploratory Analysis of the REMAGUS02 Trial. ( Aouchiche, B; Asselain, B; Benchimol, G; Brain, E; Edelman, M; Espié, M; Gao, J; Giacchetti, S; Hamy, AS; Laas, E; Laé, M; Marty, M; Pierga, JY; Pistilli, B; Reyal, F; Tury, S; Wang, X, 2019)
" We evaluated rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) in primary and revision TJA using a multimodal pain control regimen including scheduled celecoxib and PRN ketorolac."7.83Risk of Acute Kidney Injury After Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty and Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Multimodal Approach to Perioperative Pain Control Including Ketorolac and Celecoxib. ( Callaghan, JJ; Hogue, MH; Klaassen, AL; Liu, SS; Noiseux, NO; Warth, LC, 2016)
"A total of nine patients with malignant glioma, postoperatively presenting with a Karnofsky performance score (KPS) below 70, were treated with standalone metronomic low-dose chemotherapy with temozolomide and celecoxib (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor)."7.81Dual Anti-angiogenic Chemotherapy with Temozolomide and Celecoxib in Selected Patients with Malignant Glioma Not Eligible for Standard Treatment. ( Brawanski, KR; Freyschlag, CF; Grams, AE; Kerschbaumer, J; Nowosielski, M; Petr, O; Pinggera, D; Schmidt, FA; Seiz, M; Thomé, C; Tuettenberg, J, 2015)
"The present study aimed to assess the effects of a COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, atorvastatin, and the association of both on monocrotaline (MC)-induced pulmonary hypertension in rats."7.74Celecoxib but not the combination of celecoxib+atorvastatin prevents the development of monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension in the rat. ( Bardou, M; Dumas, M; Goirand, F; Guerard, P; Lirussi, F; Rakotoniaina, Z; Rochette, L, 2008)
" To clarify the role of COX-2 in atherosclerosis, we conducted a study to test whether the COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, prevents the development and progression of the atherosclerotic process."7.74The select cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib reduced the extent of atherosclerosis in apo E-/- mice. ( Jacob, S; Lanza-Jacoby, S; Laury-Kleintop, L, 2008)
"This study aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of a fixed-dose co-formulation of ciprofloxacin and celecoxib (PrimeC) in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and to examine its effects on disease progression and ALS-related biomarkers."5.69Combination of ciprofloxacin/celecoxib as a novel therapeutic strategy for ALS. ( Abramovich, B; Beaulieu, D; Berry, JD; Birman, N; Drory, VE; Eitan, E; Elgrart, K; Ennist, DL; Paganoni, S; Pushett, A; Russek-Blum, N; Salomon-Zimri, S; Shefner, JM; Van Eijk, RPA, 2023)
"Oxylipins derived from arachidonic acid (ARA) have been implicated in the development of colorectal adenomas and colorectal cancer."5.41A Protective Role for Arachidonic Acid Metabolites against Advanced Colorectal Adenoma in a Phase III Trial of Selenium. ( Chew, WM; Chow, HS; Ellis, NA; Jacobs, ET; Lance, P; Martinez, JA; Saboda, K; Skiba, MB, 2021)
"Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by overproduction of inflammatory mediators along with undermined oxidative defensive mechanisms."5.40Evening primrose oil and celecoxib inhibited pathological angiogenesis, inflammation, and oxidative stress in adjuvant-induced arthritis: novel role of angiopoietin-1. ( El-Azab, MF; El-Sayed, RM; Moustafa, YM, 2014)
"Celecoxib was not shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), although celecoxib was associated with delayed time to recurrence in pT1 NMIBC patients."5.30BOXIT-A Randomised Phase III Placebo-controlled Trial Evaluating the Addition of Celecoxib to Standard Treatment of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder (CRUK/07/004). ( Andrews, S; Blazeby, J; Bogle, R; Brough, R; Burnett, S; Cresswell, J; Cruickshank, C; Hall, E; Huddart, R; Johnson, M; Kelly, JD; Madaan, S; Maynard, L; Mostafid, H; Palmer, A; Porta, N; Protheroe, A; Tan, WS, 2019)
"Preclinical results showing therapeutic effect and low toxicity of metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (Cy) + celecoxib (Cel) for mammary tumors encouraged its translation to the clinic for treating advanced breast cancer patients (ABCP)."5.22Metastatic breast cancer patients treated with low-dose metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and celecoxib: clinical outcomes and biomarkers of response. ( Alasino, CM; Mainetti, LE; Perroud, HA; Pezzotto, SM; Queralt, F; Rico, MJ; Rozados, VR; Scharovsky, OG, 2016)
"We investigated the effect of celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase 2, in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)."5.17Effects of celecoxib on hematoma and edema volumes in primary intracerebral hemorrhage: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. ( Bae, HJ; Chung, JW; Han, MK; Jung, KH; Kim, CK; Kwon, HM; Lee, JS; Lee, SH; Lee, YS; Park, ES; Park, HK; Roh, JK; Ryu, WS, 2013)
" A Phase-II study was undertaken to determine the activity of a dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in patients with advanced colorectal cancer."5.13Phase-II study of dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and celecoxib in advanced colorectal cancer. ( El-Rayes, BF; Ferris, AM; Heilbrun, LK; Manza, SG; Philip, PA; Rusin, B; Shields, AF; Vaishampayan, U; Venkatramanamoorthy, R; Zalupski, MM, 2008)
"COX-2 activation may mediate capecitabine induced toxicities, eg, hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and colorectal cancer progression, both of which may be improved by concurrent celecoxib."5.12Retrospective study of capecitabine and celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer: potential benefits and COX-2 as the common mediator in pain, toxicities and survival? ( Ayers, GD; Brown, T; Crane, CC; Curley, SA; Delcos, M; Feig, B; Janjan, N; Lin, EH; Morris, J; Rodriguez-Bigas, MA; Ross, A; Skibber, J; Vadhan, SR, 2006)
"Celecoxib use during chemotherapy adversely affected survival in patients with breast cancer, and the effect was more marked in PTGS2-low and/or estrogen receptor-negative tumors."3.91Celecoxib With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Might Worsen Outcomes Differentially by COX-2 Expression and ER Status: Exploratory Analysis of the REMAGUS02 Trial. ( Aouchiche, B; Asselain, B; Benchimol, G; Brain, E; Edelman, M; Espié, M; Gao, J; Giacchetti, S; Hamy, AS; Laas, E; Laé, M; Marty, M; Pierga, JY; Pistilli, B; Reyal, F; Tury, S; Wang, X, 2019)
" At this time, celecoxib is the only available COX-2-specific inhibitor for treatment of pain and inflammation."3.85COX-2-dependent and independent effects of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs on proatherogenic changes in human monocytes/macrophages. ( Carsons, SE; De Leon, J; Gomolin, IH; Kasselman, LJ; Littlefield, MJ; Reiss, AB; Voloshyna, I, 2017)
" We evaluated rates of acute kidney injury (AKI) in primary and revision TJA using a multimodal pain control regimen including scheduled celecoxib and PRN ketorolac."3.83Risk of Acute Kidney Injury After Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty and Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Multimodal Approach to Perioperative Pain Control Including Ketorolac and Celecoxib. ( Callaghan, JJ; Hogue, MH; Klaassen, AL; Liu, SS; Noiseux, NO; Warth, LC, 2016)
"A total of nine patients with malignant glioma, postoperatively presenting with a Karnofsky performance score (KPS) below 70, were treated with standalone metronomic low-dose chemotherapy with temozolomide and celecoxib (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor)."3.81Dual Anti-angiogenic Chemotherapy with Temozolomide and Celecoxib in Selected Patients with Malignant Glioma Not Eligible for Standard Treatment. ( Brawanski, KR; Freyschlag, CF; Grams, AE; Kerschbaumer, J; Nowosielski, M; Petr, O; Pinggera, D; Schmidt, FA; Seiz, M; Thomé, C; Tuettenberg, J, 2015)
"Celecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, can prevent several types of cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)."3.80Celecoxib suppresses hepatoma stemness and progression by up-regulating PTEN. ( Chan, HH; Cheng, KH; Chu, TH; Hsu, PI; Hu, TH; Kung, ML; Kuo, HM; Lai, KH; Lin, SW; Liu, LF; Ma, YL; Sun, CK; Tai, MH; Wang, EM; Wen, ZH, 2014)
"To see whether celecoxib prevents gastric cancer occurrence by disrupting the progression of chronic gastritis into gastric carcinoma through its inhibition of the migration of CD133-positive cells, one of the surface markers of bone marrow-derived cells, in Helicobacter pylori-infected gerbils."3.76Celecoxib inhibits CD133-positive cell migration via reduction of CCR2 in Helicobacter pylori-infected Mongolian gerbils. ( Futagami, S; Gudis, K; Hamamoto, T; Horie, A; Kawagoe, T; Nagoya, H; Sakamoto, C; Shimpuku, M; Shindo, T, 2010)
" In this study, we show that a novel Mucin-1 (MUC1)-based vaccine in combination with a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (celecoxib), and low-dose chemotherapy (gemcitabine) was effective in preventing the progression of preneoplastic intraepithelial lesions to invasive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas."3.75Progression of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is significantly impeded with a combination of vaccine and COX-2 inhibition. ( Arefayene, M; Basu, GD; Bradley, JM; De Petris, G; Mukherjee, P; Skaar, T; Subramani, DB; Tinder, TL, 2009)
"The present study aimed to assess the effects of a COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, atorvastatin, and the association of both on monocrotaline (MC)-induced pulmonary hypertension in rats."3.74Celecoxib but not the combination of celecoxib+atorvastatin prevents the development of monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension in the rat. ( Bardou, M; Dumas, M; Goirand, F; Guerard, P; Lirussi, F; Rakotoniaina, Z; Rochette, L, 2008)
"Although evidence suggests that aspirin and celecoxib may reduce the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE), these drugs can also cause harmful side effects."3.74Patient preferences for the chemoprevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus. ( Broughton, DE; Gazelle, GS; Hur, C; Nishioka, NS; Ozanne, E; Yachimski, P, 2008)
"We created and characterized a mouse mammary adenocarcinoma cell (MMAC-1) line from C3 (1)-SV40 tumor antigen mice to study COX-2 and PPARgamma expression and response to celecoxib and F-L-Leu in vitro."3.74Suppression of tumor formation by a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor and a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonist in an in vivo mouse model of spontaneous breast cancer. ( Kruger, WD; Mustafa, A, 2008)
" To clarify the role of COX-2 in atherosclerosis, we conducted a study to test whether the COX-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, prevents the development and progression of the atherosclerotic process."3.74The select cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib reduced the extent of atherosclerosis in apo E-/- mice. ( Jacob, S; Lanza-Jacoby, S; Laury-Kleintop, L, 2008)
"Patients with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, or pouchitis who used celecoxib or rofecoxib were identified from computerized prescription records."3.71Safety of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease. ( Loftus, EV; Mahadevan, U; Sandborn, WJ; Tremaine, WJ, 2002)
"These data provide evidence that systemic therapy with celecoxib can modify the progression of experimentally induced periodontitis in rats."3.71Effect of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on the development of ligature-induced periodontitis in rats. ( Holzhausen, M; Marcantonio Júnior, E; Nassar, PO; Rossa Júnior, C; Spolidório, DM; Spolidório, LC, 2002)
" Adverse events (AEs) were similar between patients treated with tanezumab 2."3.01Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Tanezumab Versus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial. ( Brown, MT; Carrino, JA; Fountaine, RJ; Guermazi, A; Hickman, A; Hochberg, MC; Nakajo, S; Pixton, G; Schnitzer, TJ; Verburg, KM; Viktrup, L; Walsh, DA; West, CR; White, A, 2021)
"Celecoxib with CCRT was well tolerated; the incidence of symptomatic radiation pneumonitis was 6."2.90Effect of Concurrent Chemoradiation With Celecoxib vs Concurrent Chemoradiation Alone on Survival Among Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With and Without Cyclooxygenase 2 Genetic Variants: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial. ( Bi, N; Chen, D; Deng, L; Feng, Q; Fu, Z; Hu, C; Hui, Z; Liang, J; Liu, L; Lv, J; Wang, J; Wang, L; Wang, W; Wang, X; Xiao, Z; Yang, X; Zhang, T; Zhou, Z, 2019)
" We conducted a phase I and pharmacokinetic study with the erlotinib and celecoxib combination in patients with advanced premalignant lesions."2.79Chemoprevention of head and neck cancer with celecoxib and erlotinib: results of a phase ib and pharmacokinetic study. ( Beitler, JJ; Chen, AY; Chen, Z; Chen, ZG; Grandis, JR; Grist, W; Hurwitz, SJ; Khuri, FR; Kono, SA; Lewis, M; Moore, CE; Moreno-Williams, R; Müller, S; Nannapaneni, S; Owonikoko, TK; Ramalingam, S; Saba, NF; Shin, DM; Shin, HJ; Sica, G; Yang, CS; Zhao, Y, 2014)
"Celecoxib was given daily during CRT at one of five doses (200 mg bd to 600 mg bd)."2.73A phase I/II trial of celecoxib with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer. ( Biagi, J; Dawson, SJ; Foo, KF; Hui, A; Jefford, M; Leong, T; Michael, M; Milner, AD; Ngan, SY; Thomas, RJ; Zalcberg, JR, 2007)
"COX-2 is expressed in the majority of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors and correlates with stage, grade, and microvessel density."2.72Maximal COX-2 immunostaining and clinical response to celecoxib and interferon alpha therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. ( Bok, R; Dunlap, S; Elchinoff, A; Rini, BI; Simko, J; Small, EJ; Weinberg, V; Yu, N, 2006)
" Primary end points included evaluation of toxicity and determination of the OBD of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib."2.72A phase I trial to determine the optimal biological dose of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. ( Dubinett, SM; Elashoff, RM; Figlin, RA; Krysan, K; Milne, GL; Morrow, JD; Newman, RA; Reckamp, KL; Tucker, C, 2006)
"The median time to disease progression was 8 weeks, and the median overall survival was 15 weeks."2.71Pilot study of celecoxib and infusional 5-fluorouracil as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma. ( Bria, E; Carlini, P; Cognetti, F; Di Cosimo, S; Gelibter, A; Malaguti, P; Milella, M; Pellicciotta, M; Ruggeri, EM; Terzoli, E, 2004)
" All patients began treatment with celecoxib, at a starting dosage of 100 mg twice daily; patients could increase this dosage to 200 mg twice daily or could switch to another NSAID while maintaining the same treatment strategy."2.71Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs reduce radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized clinical trial. ( Béhier, JM; Calin, A; Dougados, M; Heijde, Dv; Landewé, R; Olivieri, I; Wanders, A; Zeidler, H, 2005)
"In a 12-month, multicenter, prospective, open-label trial, patients with OA of the knee or hip or rheumatoid arthritis received celecoxib at doses ranging from that recommended for the treatment of OA (200 mg/d) to twice the recommended daily dosage (400 mg/d)."2.70A 12-month, multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of radiographic analysis of disease progression in osteoarthritis of the knee or hip in patients receiving celecoxib. ( Burr, A; Katz, TK; Lefkowith, JB; Sharp, JT; Tindall, EA; Verburg, K; Wallemark, CB, 2002)
"Melanoma is a model tumor in immuno-oncology."2.66COX-2 as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target in melanoma. ( Bâldea, I; Gabriela Filip, A; Hopârtean, A; Kacso, T; Kutasi, E; Lupu, M; Stretea, R; Tudor, DV, 2020)
"COX-2 is expressed in all stages of cancer, and in several cancers its overexpression is associated with poor prognosis."2.42Enhancing radiotherapy with cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme inhibitors: a rational advance? ( Choy, H; Milas, L, 2003)
"Celecoxib did not inhibit the progression of initiated HO in the patients in whom HO was diagnosed, whereas those who received celecoxib after surgery had lower morbidity."1.51Celecoxib cannot inhibit the progression of initiated traumatic heterotopic ossification. ( Li, F; Mao, D; Mi, J; Pan, X; Rui, Y; Zhang, X, 2019)
"Treatment with celecoxib significantly decreased the induced tumor size and metastasis of the PyMT/Col1a1 tumors, such that their size was not different from the smaller PyMT tumors."1.43COX-2 modulates mammary tumor progression in response to collagen density. ( Esbona, K; Inman, D; Jeffery, J; Keely, P; Saha, S; Schedin, P; Wilke, L, 2016)
"Pertinent features such as osteophytes, subchondral sclerosis, joint effusion, bone marrow lesion (BML), cysts, loose bodies and cartilage abnormalities were included in designing a sensitive multi-modality based scoring system, termed the rat arthritis knee scoring system (RAKSS)."1.40Development and reliability of a multi-modality scoring system for evaluation of disease progression in pre-clinical models of osteoarthritis: celecoxib may possess disease-modifying properties. ( Doschak, MR; Fallone, BG; Jaremko, JL; Lambert, RG; Maksymowych, WP; Panahifar, A; Tessier, AG, 2014)
"Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by overproduction of inflammatory mediators along with undermined oxidative defensive mechanisms."1.40Evening primrose oil and celecoxib inhibited pathological angiogenesis, inflammation, and oxidative stress in adjuvant-induced arthritis: novel role of angiopoietin-1. ( El-Azab, MF; El-Sayed, RM; Moustafa, YM, 2014)
"Human hepatoma cell lines were treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, Celecoxib, and in vitro proliferation, apoptosis, and cell cycle progression were assessed."1.39Proinflammatory conditions promote hepatocellular carcinoma onset and progression via activation of Wnt and EGFR signaling pathways. ( Bai, L; Mao, ZY; Su, D; Wang, LJ; Zhang, T, 2013)
"The celecoxib treatment also protected the mice from aortic rupture and death."1.38Effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition in limiting abdominal aortic aneurysm progression in mice correlates with a differentiated smooth muscle cell phenotype. ( Gitlin, JM; Loftin, CD; Mukherjee, K, 2012)
"Celecoxib is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively inhibits COX-2."1.36Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition for the prophylaxis and treatment of preinvasive breast cancer in a her-2/neu mouse model. ( Buttars, S; Done, SJ; Tran-Thanh, D; Wen, Y; Wilson, C, 2010)
"Gliomatosis cerebri is a rare primary cerebral tumour entity characterized by diffuse infiltrative growth patterns representing a WHO grade III malignancy."1.35First experiences with low-dose anti-angiogenic treatment in gliomatosis cerebri with signs of angiogenic activity. ( Brockmann, MA; Hermes, P; Kohlhof, P; Neumaier-Probst, E; Schmieder, K; Seiz, M; Tuettenberg, J; Vajkoczy, P; VON Deimling, A, 2009)
"Celecoxib treatment significantly reduced MPO activity, TBARS levels and the incidence of gastric cancer."1.35Celecoxib inhibits apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease-1 expression and prevents gastric cancer in Helicobacter pylori-infected mongolian gerbils. ( Crowe, SE; Futagami, S; Gudis, K; Hamamoto, T; Horie, A; Kawagoe, T; Kusunoki, M; Miyake, K; Sakamoto, C; Shindo, T; Suzuki, K; Tsukui, T, 2008)
"Celecoxib is a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor with significantly less toxicity."1.33Chemopreventive effect of celecoxib in oral precancers and cancers. ( Feng, L; Wang, Z, 2006)
" This study examined the dose-response effect of celecoxib when administered during the initiation and postinitiation stages."1.31Chemoprevention of colon cancer by specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, administered during different stages of carcinogenesis. ( Hirose, Y; Kelloff, G; Lubet, R; Paulson, S; Rao, CV; Reddy, BS; Seibert, K; Steele, V, 2000)

Research

Studies (92)

TimeframeStudies, this research(%)All Research%
pre-19900 (0.00)18.7374
1990's1 (1.09)18.2507
2000's40 (43.48)29.6817
2010's45 (48.91)24.3611
2020's6 (6.52)2.80

Authors

AuthorsStudies
Mosquera-Sulbaran, JA1
Pedreañez, A1
Carrero, Y1
Callejas, D1
Martinez, JA1
Skiba, MB1
Chow, HS1
Chew, WM1
Saboda, K1
Lance, P1
Ellis, NA1
Jacobs, ET1
Min, HK1
Choi, J1
Lee, SY1
Lee, AR1
Min, BM1
Cho, ML1
Park, SH1
Salomon-Zimri, S1
Pushett, A1
Russek-Blum, N1
Van Eijk, RPA1
Birman, N1
Abramovich, B1
Eitan, E1
Elgrart, K1
Beaulieu, D1
Ennist, DL1
Berry, JD1
Paganoni, S1
Shefner, JM1
Drory, VE2
Mortensen, R1
Clemmensen, HS1
Woodworth, JS1
Therkelsen, ML1
Mustafa, T1
Tonby, K1
Jenum, S1
Agger, EM1
Dyrhol-Riise, AM1
Andersen, P1
Li, F1
Mao, D1
Pan, X1
Zhang, X2
Mi, J1
Rui, Y1
Bi, N1
Liang, J1
Zhou, Z1
Chen, D1
Fu, Z1
Yang, X1
Feng, Q1
Hui, Z1
Xiao, Z1
Lv, J1
Wang, X3
Zhang, T2
Deng, L1
Wang, W1
Wang, J1
Liu, L1
Hu, C1
Wang, L1
Tudor, DV1
Bâldea, I1
Lupu, M1
Kacso, T1
Kutasi, E1
Hopârtean, A1
Stretea, R1
Gabriela Filip, A1
Hochberg, MC1
Carrino, JA1
Schnitzer, TJ1
Guermazi, A1
Walsh, DA1
White, A1
Nakajo, S1
Fountaine, RJ1
Hickman, A1
Pixton, G1
Viktrup, L1
Brown, MT1
West, CR1
Verburg, KM1
Pramanik, R1
Agarwala, S1
Gupta, YK1
Thulkar, S1
Vishnubhatla, S1
Batra, A1
Dhawan, D1
Bakhshi, S1
Proft, F1
Muche, B1
Listing, J1
Rios-Rodriguez, V1
Sieper, J1
Poddubnyy, D1
Grabosch, SM2
Shariff, OM2
Helm, CW2
Singh, S1
Tellegen, AR1
Rudnik-Jansen, I1
Beukers, M1
Miranda-Bedate, A1
Bach, FC1
de Jong, W1
Woike, N1
Mihov, G1
Thies, JC1
Meij, BP1
Creemers, LB1
Tryfonidou, MA1
Kelly, JD1
Tan, WS1
Porta, N1
Mostafid, H1
Huddart, R1
Protheroe, A1
Bogle, R1
Blazeby, J1
Palmer, A1
Cresswell, J1
Johnson, M1
Brough, R1
Madaan, S1
Andrews, S1
Cruickshank, C1
Burnett, S1
Maynard, L1
Hall, E1
Mateus, PAM1
Kido, LA1
Silva, RS1
Cagnon, VHA1
Montico, F1
Hamy, AS1
Tury, S1
Gao, J1
Pierga, JY1
Giacchetti, S1
Brain, E1
Pistilli, B1
Marty, M1
Espié, M1
Benchimol, G1
Laas, E1
Laé, M1
Asselain, B1
Aouchiche, B1
Edelman, M1
Reyal, F1
Lee, SH1
Park, HK1
Ryu, WS1
Lee, JS1
Bae, HJ1
Han, MK1
Lee, YS1
Kwon, HM1
Kim, CK1
Park, ES1
Chung, JW1
Jung, KH1
Roh, JK1
Wang, LJ1
Bai, L1
Su, D1
Mao, ZY1
Saba, NF1
Hurwitz, SJ1
Kono, SA1
Yang, CS2
Zhao, Y2
Chen, Z1
Sica, G1
Müller, S1
Moreno-Williams, R1
Lewis, M1
Grist, W1
Chen, AY1
Moore, CE1
Owonikoko, TK1
Ramalingam, S1
Beitler, JJ1
Nannapaneni, S1
Shin, HJ2
Grandis, JR1
Khuri, FR2
Chen, ZG2
Shin, DM2
Garcia, M1
Velez, R1
Romagosa, C1
Majem, B1
Pedrola, N1
Olivan, M1
Rigau, M1
Guiu, M1
Gomis, RR1
Morote, J1
Reventós, J1
Doll, A1
Wang, H1
Cui, XX2
Goodin, S1
Ding, N1
Van Doren, J1
Du, Z1
Huang, MT2
Liu, Y2
Cheng, X1
Dipaola, RS1
Conney, AH2
Zheng, X2
El-Sayed, RM1
Moustafa, YM1
El-Azab, MF1
Wulff, JL1
Chu, TH1
Chan, HH1
Kuo, HM1
Liu, LF1
Hu, TH1
Sun, CK1
Kung, ML1
Lin, SW1
Wang, EM1
Ma, YL1
Cheng, KH1
Lai, KH1
Wen, ZH1
Hsu, PI1
Tai, MH1
Panahifar, A1
Jaremko, JL1
Tessier, AG1
Lambert, RG1
Maksymowych, WP1
Fallone, BG1
Doschak, MR1
Valverde, A1
Peñarando, J1
Cañas, A1
López-Sánchez, LM1
Conde, F1
Hernández, V1
Peralbo, E1
López-Pedrera, C1
de la Haba-Rodríguez, J1
Aranda, E1
Rodríguez-Ariza, A1
Kerschbaumer, J1
Schmidt, FA1
Grams, AE1
Nowosielski, M1
Pinggera, D1
Brawanski, KR1
Petr, O1
Thomé, C1
Tuettenberg, J2
Seiz, M2
Freyschlag, CF1
Warth, LC1
Noiseux, NO1
Hogue, MH1
Klaassen, AL1
Liu, SS1
Callaghan, JJ1
Ungprasert, P1
Srivali, N1
Kittanamongkolchai, W1
Perroud, HA1
Alasino, CM1
Rico, MJ1
Mainetti, LE1
Queralt, F1
Pezzotto, SM1
Rozados, VR1
Scharovsky, OG1
Esbona, K1
Inman, D1
Saha, S1
Jeffery, J1
Schedin, P1
Wilke, L1
Keely, P1
Evageliou, NF1
Haber, M1
Vu, A1
Laetsch, TW1
Murray, J1
Gamble, LD1
Cheng, NC1
Liu, K1
Reese, M1
Corrigan, KA1
Ziegler, DS1
Webber, H1
Hayes, CS1
Pawel, B1
Marshall, GM1
Zhao, H1
Gilmour, SK1
Norris, MD1
Hogarty, MD1
Jeong, Y1
Lee, JL1
Voloshyna, I1
Kasselman, LJ1
Carsons, SE1
Littlefield, MJ1
Gomolin, IH1
De Leon, J1
Reiss, AB1
Rakotoniaina, Z1
Guerard, P1
Lirussi, F1
Rochette, L1
Dumas, M1
Goirand, F1
Bardou, M1
Colby, JK1
Klein, RD1
McArthur, MJ1
Conti, CJ2
Kiguchi, K1
Kawamoto, T1
Riggs, PK1
Pavone, AI1
Sawicki, J1
Fischer, SM2
Mustafa, A1
Kruger, WD1
Hur, C1
Broughton, DE1
Ozanne, E1
Yachimski, P1
Nishioka, NS1
Gazelle, GS1
Kassam, A1
Mandel, K1
Futagami, S2
Kawagoe, T2
Horie, A2
Shindo, T2
Hamamoto, T2
Suzuki, K1
Kusunoki, M1
Miyake, K1
Gudis, K2
Tsukui, T1
Crowe, SE1
Sakamoto, C2
Schneider, BJ1
Kalemkerian, GP1
Kraut, MJ1
Wozniak, AJ1
Worden, FP1
Smith, DW1
Chen, W1
Gadgeel, SM1
Mukherjee, P1
Basu, GD1
Tinder, TL1
Subramani, DB1
Bradley, JM1
Arefayene, M1
Skaar, T1
De Petris, G1
Arúajo, AM1
Mendez, JC1
Coelho, AL1
Sousa, B1
Barata, F1
Figueiredo, A1
Amaro, T1
Azevedo, I1
Soares, M1
Zhang, LJ1
Wang, SY1
Huo, XH1
Zhu, ZL1
Chu, JK1
Ma, JC1
Cui, DS1
Gu, P1
Zhao, ZR1
Wang, MW1
Yu, J1
Kohlhof, P1
Brockmann, MA1
Neumaier-Probst, E1
Hermes, P1
VON Deimling, A1
Vajkoczy, P1
Schmieder, K1
Gao, Z1
Lin, Y2
Shih, WJ1
Rabson, A1
Reddy, B1
Shimpuku, M1
Nagoya, H1
Tran-Thanh, D1
Buttars, S1
Wen, Y1
Wilson, C1
Done, SJ1
Raynauld, JP1
Martel-Pelletier, J1
Beaulieu, A1
Bessette, L1
Morin, F1
Choquette, D1
Haraoui, B1
Abram, F1
Pelletier, JP1
Peterson, JD1
Labranche, TP1
Vasquez, KO1
Kossodo, S1
Melton, M1
Rader, R1
Listello, JT1
Abrams, MA1
Misko, TP1
Raval, M1
Frank, PG1
Laury-Kleintop, L2
Yan, G1
Lanza-Jacoby, S2
Kivivuori, SM1
Riikonen, P1
Valanne, L1
Lönnqvist, T1
Saarinen-Pihkala, UM1
Nefussy, B1
Hirsch, J1
Cudkowicz, ME1
Meyskens, FL1
McLaren, CE1
Gravitz, L1
Pettersen, FO1
Torheim, EA1
Dahm, AE1
Aaberge, IS1
Lind, A1
Holm, M1
Aandahl, EM1
Sandset, PM1
Taskén, K1
Kvale, D1
Koch, A1
Bergman, B1
Holmberg, E1
Sederholm, C1
Ek, L1
Kosieradzki, J1
Lamberg, K1
Thaning, L1
Ydreborg, SO1
Sörenson, S1
Hill, R1
Li, Y1
Tran, LM1
Dry, S1
Calvopina, JH1
Garcia, A1
Kim, C1
Wang, Y1
Donahue, TR1
Herschman, HR1
Wu, H1
Mukherjee, K1
Gitlin, JM1
Loftin, CD1
Saito, Y1
Suzuki, H1
Imaeda, H1
Matsuzaki, J1
Hirata, K1
Tsugawa, H1
Hibino, S1
Kanai, Y1
Saito, H1
Hibi, T1
Doll, CM1
Winter, K1
Gaffney, DK1
Ryu, JK1
Jhingran, A1
Dicker, AP1
Weidhaas, JB1
Miller, BE1
Magliocco, AM1
Holzhausen, M1
Rossa Júnior, C1
Marcantonio Júnior, E1
Nassar, PO1
Spolidório, DM1
Spolidório, LC1
Tindall, EA1
Sharp, JT1
Burr, A1
Katz, TK1
Wallemark, CB1
Verburg, K1
Lefkowith, JB1
Viner, J1
Aldaz, CM1
Lubet, RA1
Choy, H1
Milas, L1
Diperna, CA1
Bart, RD1
Sievers, EM1
Ma, Y1
Starnes, VA1
Bremner, RM1
Fujihara, CK1
Antunes, GR1
Mattar, AL1
Andreoli, N1
Malheiros, DM1
Noronha, IL1
Zatz, R1
Schilling, G1
Savonenko, AV1
Coonfield, ML1
Morton, JL1
Vorovich, E1
Gale, A1
Neslon, C1
Chan, N1
Eaton, M1
Fromholt, D1
Ross, CA1
Borchelt, DR1
Krum, H1
Liew, D1
Aw, J1
Haas, S1
Milella, M1
Gelibter, A1
Di Cosimo, S1
Bria, E1
Ruggeri, EM1
Carlini, P1
Malaguti, P1
Pellicciotta, M1
Terzoli, E1
Cognetti, F1
Ward, MM1
Wanders, A1
Heijde, Dv1
Landewé, R1
Béhier, JM1
Calin, A1
Olivieri, I1
Zeidler, H1
Dougados, M1
Altundag, O1
Altundag, K1
Boruban, C1
Silay, YS1
Choe, MS1
Sun, SY1
Wieand, HS1
Chen, A1
Rini, BI1
Weinberg, V1
Dunlap, S1
Elchinoff, A1
Yu, N1
Bok, R1
Simko, J1
Small, EJ1
Pruthi, RS1
Derksen, JE1
Moore, D1
Carson, CC1
Grigson, G1
Watkins, C1
Wallen, E1
Reckamp, KL1
Krysan, K1
Morrow, JD1
Milne, GL1
Newman, RA1
Tucker, C1
Elashoff, RM1
Dubinett, SM1
Figlin, RA1
Lin, EH1
Curley, SA1
Crane, CC1
Feig, B1
Skibber, J1
Delcos, M1
Vadhan, SR1
Morris, J1
Ayers, GD1
Ross, A1
Brown, T1
Rodriguez-Bigas, MA1
Janjan, N1
Joshi, N1
Johnson, LL1
Wei, WQ1
Abnet, CC1
Dong, ZW1
Taylor, PR1
Limburg, PJ1
Dawsey, SM1
Hawk, ET1
Qiao, YL1
Kirsch, IR1
Buckstein, R1
Kerbel, RS1
Shaked, Y1
Nayar, R1
Foden, C1
Turner, R1
Lee, CR1
Taylor, D1
Zhang, L1
Man, S1
Baruchel, S1
Stempak, D1
Bertolini, F1
Crump, M1
Feng, L1
Wang, Z1
Wilson, KS1
Dawson, SJ1
Michael, M1
Biagi, J1
Foo, KF1
Jefford, M1
Ngan, SY1
Leong, T1
Hui, A1
Milner, AD1
Thomas, RJ1
Zalcberg, JR1
El-Rayes, BF1
Zalupski, MM1
Manza, SG1
Rusin, B1
Ferris, AM1
Vaishampayan, U1
Heilbrun, LK1
Venkatramanamoorthy, R1
Shields, AF1
Philip, PA1
Jacob, S1
Carles, J1
Font, A1
Mellado, B1
Domenech, M1
Gallardo, E1
González-Larriba, JL1
Catalan, G1
Alfaro, J1
Gonzalez Del Alba, A1
Nogué, M1
Lianes, P1
Tello, JM1
Dirix, LY1
Ignacio, J1
Nag, S1
Bapsy, P1
Gomez, H1
Raghunadharao, D1
Paridaens, R1
Jones, S1
Falcon, S1
Carpentieri, M1
Abbattista, A1
Lobelle, JP1
Ziegler, J1
Reddy, BS1
Hirose, Y1
Lubet, R1
Steele, V1
Kelloff, G1
Paulson, S1
Seibert, K1
Rao, CV1
Bresalier, RS1
Mahadevan, U1
Loftus, EV1
Tremaine, WJ1
Sandborn, WJ1

Clinical Trials (13)

Trial Overview

TrialPhaseEnrollmentStudy TypeStart DateStatus
A Randomized Phase II Trial of Cisplatin/Etoposide and Concurrent Radiotherapy With or Without Celecoxib in Patients With Unresectable Locally Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer[NCT01503385]Phase 2100 participants (Anticipated)Interventional2011-12-31Recruiting
A PHASE 3 RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, ACTIVE-CONTROLLED, MULTICENTER STUDY OF THE LONG-TERM SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF SUBCUTANEOUS ADMINISTRATION OF TANEZUMAB IN SUBJECTS WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS OF THE HIP OR KNEE[NCT02528188]Phase 33,021 participants (Actual)Interventional2015-07-21Completed
Low Dose Chemotherapy (Metronomic Therapy) Versus Best Supportive Care in Progressive and/or Refractory Pediatric Malignancies: a Double Blind Placebo Controlled Randomized Study[NCT01858571]Phase 3108 participants (Actual)Interventional2013-10-31Completed
COmparison of the Effect of Treatment With NSAIDs Added to Anti-TNF Therapy Versus Anti-TNF Therapy Alone on Progression of StrUctural Damage in the Spine Over Two Years in Patients With ankyLosing Spondylitis: a Randomized Controlled Multicentre Trial[NCT02758782]Phase 4156 participants (Actual)Interventional2016-09-30Completed
A Randomized Phase III Double Blind Trial Evaluating Selective COX-2 Inhibition in COX-2 Expressing Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer[NCT01041781]Phase 3313 participants (Actual)Interventional2010-02-28Terminated (stopped due to DSMB recommendation)
Effects and Mechanisms of Celecoxib on Intracerebral Hemorrhage[NCT05434065]Phase 260 participants (Anticipated)Interventional2023-01-01Recruiting
Phase I/II Study of Chemoprevention With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Erlotinib (OSI-774, Tarceva) and Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) Inhibitor (Celecoxib) in Premalignant Lesions of Head and Neck of Former Smokers[NCT00314262]Phase 1/Phase 217 participants (Actual)Interventional2006-10-31Completed
Evaluation Of Celecoxib In Combination With Docetaxel In The Treatment Of Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Previously Treated With Platinum Based Chemotherapy[NCT00030420]Phase 224 participants (Actual)Interventional2001-10-31Completed
Cox-2-Inhibitor and Chemotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study[NCT00300729]Phase 3319 participants (Actual)Interventional2006-05-31Active, not recruiting
Effects of NSAIDs on RAdiographic Damage in Ankylosing Spondylitis (ENRADAS) - a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial[NCT00715091]Phase 4180 participants (Actual)Interventional2008-09-30Completed
A Phase I Trial Of A COX-2 Inhibitor (Celecoxib) In Combination With An EGFR Inhibitor (OSI-774) In Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer[NCT00072072]Phase 10 participants Interventional2003-08-31Completed
0822GCC Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Multicenter Phase 2 Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Apricoxib in Combination With Either Docetaxel or Pemetrexed in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients[NCT00771953]Phase 2109 participants (Actual)Interventional2008-11-30Completed
Clinical Evaluation of Bioadhesive Gels for Oral Cancer Chemoprevention[NCT01192204]Phase 1/Phase 241 participants (Actual)Interventional2010-10-31Completed
[information is prepared from clinicaltrials.gov, extracted Sep-2024]

Trial Outcomes

Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 16

"PGA of OA was assessed by asking a question from participants: Considering all the ways your OA in your knee or hip (index joint) affects you, how are you doing today? Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, using Interactive Response Technology (IRT), where 1=very good (no symptom 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 and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-0.96
Tanezumab 5 mg-0.97
NSAID-0.94

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Week 16

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. The WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to OA of index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 5 individual questions, which may not be a whole (integer) number, scored on a numerical rating scale (NRS). Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-3.22
Tanezumab 5 mg-3.33
NSAID-3.07

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Week 16

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. The WOMAC physical function subscale is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, which may not be a whole (integer) number, scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC physical function subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicated extreme difficulty/worse physical function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 16

Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-3.27
Tanezumab 5 mg-3.39
NSAID-3.08

Number of Days of Rescue Medication Used During Week 64

In case of inadequate pain relief, after week 16, acetaminophen/paracetamol up to 3000 mg per day up to 7 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication and use was reported weekly via diary. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during Week 64 were summarized. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Week 64

Interventiondays (Mean)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2.0
Tanezumab 5 mg2.3
NSAID1.7

Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Week 64

In case of inadequate pain relief, after Week 16, acetaminophen/paracetamol up to 3000 mg per day up to 7 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication and use was reported weekly via diary. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during Week 64 were summarized. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Week 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg251
Tanezumab 5 mg268
NSAID215

Number of Participants Who Withdrew Due to Lack of Efficacy

Number of participants who withdrew from treatment due to lack of efficacy have been reported here. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 56

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg60
Tanezumab 5 mg63
NSAID91

Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities With Regard to Abnormal Baseline

Primary Abnormality criteria: hemoglobin; hematocrit; RBC count < 0.8*LLN; Ery. mean corpuscular volume/ hemoglobin/ HGB concentration, erythrocytes distribution width <0.9*LLN, >1.1*ULN; platelets <0.5*LLN,>1.75*upper limit of normal (ULN); white blood cell count<0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; Lymphocytes, Lymphocytes/Leukocytes, Neutrophils, Neutrophils/Leukocytes <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; Basophils, Eosinophils, Monocytes >1.2*ULN; total bilirubin>1.5*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, gamma GT,LDH, 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; Hemoglobin A1C >1.3*ULN; creatine kinase >2.0*ULN; specific gravity<1.003, >1.030; Urine erythrocytes,Leukocytes>=20; Hyaline Casts>=1. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg78
Tanezumab 5 mg61
NSAID84

Number of Participants With Laboratory Test Abnormalities With Regard to Normal Baseline

Primary Abnormality criteria: HGB, hematocrit, RBC count <0.8* lower limit of normal(LLN); Ery. mean corpuscular volume/hemoglobin/ HGB concentration, RBCs distribution width <0.9*LLN, >1.1*upper limit of normal(ULN); platelets <0.5*LLN,>1.75*ULN; Leukocytes <0.6*LLN, >1.5*ULN; Lymphocytes, Neutrophils <0.8*LLN, >1.2*ULN; Basophils,Eosinophils,Monocytes>1.2*ULN; Prothrombin time/Intl. normalized ratio>1.1*ULN; total bilirubin>1.5*ULN; aspartate aminotransferase,alanine aminotransferase,gamma GT,LDH,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, specific gravity<1.003, >1.030; pH<4.5, >8;Urine erythrocytes,Leukocytes>=20. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg109
Tanezumab 5 mg102
NSAID121

Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate of Participants With Adjudicated Primary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

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). Primary joint safety outcome included participants with adjudicated outcome of primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive OA type 1 or type 2, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. Event rate was calculated as the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionevents per 1000 participant-years (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg38.3
Tanezumab 5 mg71.5
NSAID14.8

Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate of Participants With Adjudicated Secondary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

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). Secondary joint safety outcome included primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive OA (type-2), subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. Event rate was calculated as the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionevents per 1000 participant-years (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg9.7
Tanezumab 5 mg21.8
NSAID4.9

Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate of Participants With Total Joint Replacement or Adjudicated Primary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

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). Adjudicated primary composite joint safety outcomes included primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive OA type 1 or type 2, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. Event rate was calculated as the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionevents per 1000 participant-years (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg84.9
Tanezumab 5 mg132.5
NSAID36.7

Percentage of Participants With Adjudicated Primary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

Any participant with incidence of an adjudicated outcome of primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (OA) type 1 or type 2, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. Rapidly progressive OA type 1 events were those that the Adjudication Committee considered to have significant loss of joint space width (JSW) (greater than or equal to [>=] 2 millimeters [mm]) within approximately 1 year without gross structural failure. Rapidly progressive OA type 2 events were those considered to have abnormal loss/destruction of bone including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface (e.g., medial femoral condyle) that is not normally present in conventional end-stage OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3.9
Tanezumab 5 mg7.1
NSAID1.5

Percentage of Participants With Adjudicated Secondary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

Any participant with incidence of an adjudicated outcome of primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive OA type 2, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. Rapidly progressive OA type 2 events were those considered to have abnormal loss/destruction of bone including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface (e.g., medial femoral condyle) that is not normally present in conventional end-stage OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1.0
Tanezumab 5 mg2.2
NSAID0.5

Percentage of Participants With Total Joint Replacement or Adjudicated Primary Composite Joint Safety Outcome

Percentage of participants with total joint replacement (hip, knee or shoulder) or adjudicated primary composite joint safety outcomes were reported. Adjudicated primary composite joint safety outcomes included primary osteonecrosis, rapidly progressive OA type 1 or type 2, subchondral insufficiency fracture, or pathological fracture. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Tanezumab 2.5 mg8.6
Tanezumab 5 mg13.1
NSAID3.7

Time to Discontinuation Due to Lack of Efficacy

Time to discontinuation 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. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 56

Interventiondays (Median)
Tanezumab 2.5 mgNA
Tanezumab 5 mgNA
NSAIDNA

Amount of Rescue Medication Used During Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 16

In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol up to 3000 mg per day up to 3 days in a week could be taken as rescue medication. The total dosage of acetaminophen in milligrams used during the specified week were summarized. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8 and 16

,,
Interventionmilligrams (Least Squares Mean)
Week 2Week 4Week 8Week 16
NSAID3310.52814.12839.72320.0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2880.32107.81995.61696.4
Tanezumab 5 mg2898.71946.51628.81581.6

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Minutes of Bouted (Sustained) Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity at Weeks 16 and 56

"An average daily physical activity count was measured using actigraphy which was then sorted into three intensity thresholds: light (100 - <1,500 counts) moderate (1,500 - <6,500 counts), and vigorous (>=6,500 counts). Participants continuously wore the accelerometer (apart for water activities) in the morning until going to bed at night for 7 or 14 consecutive days while going about their usual daily activities. Participants maintained a log (electronic or written) to record when the accelerometer was put on in the morning and removed at night (or if removed for any other purpose).A bout of moderate to vigorous activity was defined as 10 or more consecutive minutes above the moderate physical activity level threshold, with allowance for interruptions of 1 or 2 minutes below the threshold." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionminutes (Median)
BaselineChange at Week 16Change at Week 56
NSAID0.00.00.0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0.00.00.0
Tanezumab 5 mg0.00.0-1.4

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Minutes of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity at Weeks 16 and 56

An average daily physical activity count was measured using actigraphy which was then sorted into three intensity thresholds: light (100 - less than {<1500} counts moderate (1,500 - <6500 counts), and vigorous (>=6500 counts). Participants continuously wore the accelerometer (apart for water activities) in the morning until going to bed at night for 7 or 14 consecutive days while going about their usual daily activities. Participants maintained a log (electronic or written) to record when the accelerometer was put on in the morning and removed at night (or if removed for any other purpose). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionminutes (Median)
BaselineChange at Week 16Change at Week 56
NSAID41.9-0.17.4
Tanezumab 2.5 mg41.20.7-3.8
Tanezumab 5 mg53.1-1.62.7

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Minutes of Physical Activity at Weeks 16 and 56

Participant activity level was assessed using actigraphy. Participants continuously wore the accelerometer (apart for water activities) in the morning until going to bed at night for 7 or 14 consecutive days while going about their usual daily activities. Participants maintained a log (electronic or written) to record when the accelerometer was put on in the morning and removed at night (or if removed for any other purpose). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionminutes (Median)
BaselineChange at Week 16Change at Week 56
NSAID99.2-4.23.9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg97.03.9-8.9
Tanezumab 5 mg107.12.9-10.1

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Physical Activity Counts at Weeks 16 and 56

An average daily physical activity count was measured using actigraphy. Participants continuously wore the accelerometer (apart for water activities) in the morning until going to bed at night for 7 or 14 consecutive days while going about their usual daily activities. Participants maintained a log (electronic or written) to record when the accelerometer was put on in the morning and removed at night (or if removed for any other purpose). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionphysical activity counts (Median)
BaselineChange at Week 16Change at Week 56
NSAID744141202.94414.3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg75244-470.0-14552
Tanezumab 5 mg95911-2261-8313

Change From Baseline in Average Daily Step Count at Weeks 16 and 56

Average daily step count was measured using actigraphy. Participants continuously wore the accelerometer (apart for water activities) in the morning until going to bed at night for 7 or 14 consecutive days while going about their usual daily activities. Participants maintained a log (electronic or written) to record when the accelerometer was put on in the morning and removed at night (or if removed for any other purpose). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionstep count (Median)
BaselineChange at Week 16Change at Week 56
NSAID4779.0-705.7242.6
Tanezumab 2.5 mg4851.0350.9-1938
Tanezumab 5 mg5834.887.8-543.2

Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Joint at Week 64

Participants assessed their average pain in the index hip/knee in the past 24 hours using NRS, with a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Higher scores indicated higher pain. Data represents averages of the values reported during the 4-week interval up to and including Week 64. Change from baseline was calculated using the difference between each post-baseline weekly mean and the baseline mean score. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID6.76-3.24
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6.76-3.01
Tanezumab 5 mg6.77-2.81

Change From Baseline in Average Pain Score in the Index Joint at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

Participants assessed their average pain in the index hip/knee in the past 24 hours using NRS, with a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Higher scores indicated higher pain. Data for Weeks 20 through 56 represents averages of the values reported during the 4-week interval up to and including the given week. Change from baseline was calculated using the difference between each post-baseline weekly mean and the baseline mean score. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 1Change at Week 2Change at Week 3Change at Week 4Change at Week 6Change at Week 8Change at Week 10Change at Week 12Change at Week 16Change at Week 20Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-0.56-0.91-1.23-1.32-1.49-1.59-1.98-2.10-2.17-2.27-2.11-2.06-2.07-2.03-2.04
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-0.47-1.02-1.40-1.62-1.85-1.83-2.35-2.48-2.41-2.56-2.35-2.27-2.25-2.20-2.17
Tanezumab 5 mg-0.56-0.97-1.30-1.65-1.97-2.04-2.46-2.55-2.52-2.60-2.41-2.26-2.20-2.10-2.03

Change From Baseline in Blood Pressure (BP) at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

Measurement of BP included sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

,,
Interventionmillimeters of mercury (mmHg) (Mean)
SBP: BaselineSBP: Change at Week 2SBP: Change at Week 4SBP: Change at Week 8SBP: Change at Week 16SBP: Change at Week 24SBP: Change at Week 32SBP: Change at Week 40SBP: Change at Week 48SBP: Change at Week 56SBP: Change at Week 64SBP: Change at Week 80DBP: BaselineDBP: Change at Week 2DBP: Change at Week 4DBP: Change at Week 8DBP: Change at Week 16DBP: Change at Week 24DBP: Change at Week 32DBP: Change at Week 40DBP: Change at Week 48DBP: Change at Week 56DBP: Change at Week 64DBP: Change at Week 80
NSAID128.8-1.2-1.8-1.8-1.3-1.7-1.7-2.3-2.2-2.2-2.8-2.379.3-1.1-1.4-1.1-1.1-1.4-1.2-1.1-1.5-1.2-1.7-1.2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg128.9-2.7-4.0-2.9-3.0-3.0-2.8-2.5-2.7-3.1-2.1-1.079.3-1.3-2.2-1.1-1.3-1.3-1.3-1.2-0.9-1.8-0.8-0.6
Tanezumab 5 mg129.3-4.2-4.9-3.8-3.7-3.1-3.3-3.8-3.0-3.4-2.1-1.379.1-2.1-2.5-1.7-1.8-1.7-1.4-2.0-1.8-1.9-0.8-0.6

Change From Baseline in Electrocardiogram (ECG) Parameters at Weeks 56 and 80

A 12-lead ECG was recorded after participants had rested for at least 5 minutes in the supine position in a quiet environment. All standard intervals (PR, QRS, QT, QTcF, QTcB, RR intervals) were collected. ECG abnormalities included: 1) QT interval, QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula (QTcB) and QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula (QTcF): increase from baseline greater than (>) 30 millisecond (ms) or 60 ms; absolute value > 450 ms, >480 ms and > 500 ms; 2) heart rate (HR) : absolute value <=50 bpm and decrease from baseline >=20 bpm; absolute value >=120 beats per minute (bpm) and increase from baseline >=20 bpm; 3) PR interval: absolute value >=220 ms and increase from baseline >=20 ms; 4) QRS interval: absolute value >= 120 ms. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 56 and 80

,,
Interventionmilliseconds (Mean)
RR Interval: BaselineRR Interval:Change at Week 56RR Interval:Change at Week 80PR Interval: BaselinePR Interval:Change at Week 56PR Interval:Change at Week 80QRS Interval: BaselineQRS Interval:Change at Week 56QRS Interval:Change at Week 80QT Interval: BaselineQT Interval:Change at Week 56QT Interval:Change at Week 80QTCB Interval: BaselineQTCB Interval:Change at Week 56QTCB Interval:Change at Week 80QTCF Interval: BaselineQTCF Interval:Change at Week 56QTCF Interval:Change at Week 80
NSAID936.1-14.9-34.3163.91.70.694.3-0.4-0.1404.3-2.9-6.0419.70.21.7414.3-0.8-1.0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg940.5-26.3-33.6165.01.70.394.90.2-0.2405.0-3.5-6.2419.32.31.5414.20.3-1.2
Tanezumab 5 mg940.1-22.6-32.4165.90.6-0.894.60.41.0403.8-4.5-6.8418.50.50.2413.3-1.2-2.1

Change From Baseline in Heart Rate (as Assessed by ECG) at Weeks 56 and 80

Heart rate was measured at sitting position. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 56 and 80

,,
Interventionbeats per minute (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 56Change at Week 80
NSAID65.61.02.5
Tanezumab 2.5 mg65.22.02.7
Tanezumab 5 mg65.41.72.3

Change From Baseline in Heart Rate at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

Heart rate (pulse rate) was measured at sitting position. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

,,
Interventionbeats per minute (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56Change at Week 64Change at Week 80
NSAID70.61.11.20.10.80.81.71.41.3-0.00.50.9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg70.81.81.60.70.50.41.21.20.60.21.50.9
Tanezumab 5 mg70.52.02.00.80.50.71.61.61.00.11.50.6

Change From Baseline in Joint Space Width of the Index Hip (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2 or 3) at Weeks 56 and 80

Change from baseline in JSW was defined as narrowing in JSW compared to baseline in participants with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3 over the course of the study. It was measured radiographically in the index hip in participants with OA. Kellgren-Lawrence grade system was a method of classifying the severity of hip OA using five grades i.e. 0 (no radiographic features of OA), 1 (doubtful JSN and possible osteophytic lipping), 2 (definite osteophytes and possible JSN on anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph), 3 (multiple osteophytes, definite JSN, sclerosis, possible bony deformity), 4 (large osteophytes, marked JSN, severe sclerosis and definite bony deformity). Higher grade indicating worse hip function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 56 and 80

,,
Interventionmillimeter (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 56Change at Week 80
NSAID-0.21-0.28
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-0.35-0.46
Tanezumab 5 mg-0.40-0.35

Change From Baseline in Medial or Lateral Joint Space Width of the Index Knee (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2 or 3) at Weeks 56 and 80

Change from baseline in JSW was defined as change in JSW compared to baseline in participants with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3 over the course of the study. It was measured radiographically in the medial and lateral tibiofemoral of knee in participants with OA. Kellgren-Lawrence grade system was a method of classifying the severity of knee OA using five grades i.e. 0 [no radiographic features of OA], 1 [doubtful joint space narrowing (JSN) and possible osteophytic lipping], 2 [definite osteophytes and possible JSN on anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph], 3 [multiple osteophytes, definite JSN, sclerosis, possible bony deformity], 4 [large osteophytes, marked JSN, severe sclerosis and definite bony deformity]. Higher grade indicating worse knee function. The number of participants with progression of OA in the index knee are summarized separately by the compartment of OA at baseline (medial or lateral). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 56 and 80

,,
Interventionmillimeter (Least Squares Mean)
Change in Medial JSW at Week 56Change in Medial JSW at Week 80Change in Lateral JSW at Week 56Change in Lateral JSW at Week 80
NSAID-0.19-0.25-0.27-0.37
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-0.25-0.33-0.26-0.46
Tanezumab 5 mg-0.34-0.37-0.32-0.32

Change From Baseline in Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS) at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

NIS is a standardized instrument used to evaluate participant for signs of peripheral neuropathy. NIS is the sum of scores of 37 items, from both the left and right side, where 24 items scored from 0 (normal) to 4 (paralysis), higher score indicated higher abnormality/impairment and 13 items scored from 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent), higher score indicated higher impairment. NIS possible overall score ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased impairment. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56Change at Week 64Change at Week 80
NSAID1.87-0.15-0.19-0.36-0.47-0.49-0.53-0.53-0.55-0.58-0.57-0.62
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1.85-0.22-0.16-0.27-0.27-0.32-0.37-0.35-0.37-0.35-0.32-0.35
Tanezumab 5 mg1.70-0.13-0.17-0.22-0.31-0.35-0.40-0.43-0.49-0.52-0.47-0.47

Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Week 64

"PGA of OA was assessed by asking a question from participants: Considering all the ways your OA in your knee or hip (index joint) affects you, how are you doing today? Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, using IRT, where 1=very good (no symptom 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 and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID3.44-0.95
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3.49-0.79
Tanezumab 5 mg3.46-0.64

Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

"PGA of OA was assessed by asking a question from participants: Considering all the ways your OA in your knee or hip (index joint) affects you, how are you doing today? Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, using IRT, where 1=very good (no symptom 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 and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worsening of condition." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-0.63-0.69-0.76-0.74-0.72-0.69-0.67-0.66
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-0.67-0.81-0.77-0.74-0.72-0.70-0.70-0.65
Tanezumab 5 mg-0.67-0.84-0.85-0.79-0.71-0.69-0.66-0.60

Change From Baseline in Survey of Autonomic Symptom (SAS) Scores at Weeks 24, 56 and 80

The SAS is a 12 item (11 for females) questionnaire, from which the total number of symptoms (0-12 for males and 0-11 for females) is calculated. Each positive symptom is rated from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). The total impact score was the sum of all symptom rating scores, with 0 assigned where the participant did not have the particular symptom. The range for the total impact score is 0-60 for males and 0-55 for females, higher scores indicating higher impact. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 24, 56 and 80

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
Number of symptoms reported: BaselineNumber of symptoms reported: Change at Week 24Number of symptoms reported: Change at Week 56Number of symptoms reported: Change at Week 80Total symptom impact score: BaselineTotal symptom impact score: Change at Week 24Total symptom impact score: Change at Week 56Total symptom impact score: Change at Week 80
NSAID0.490.110.220.741.130.330.820.89
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0.470.210.280.891.100.660.971.33
Tanezumab 5 mg0.530.180.330.941.230.521.211.31

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Week 64

WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA of index joint (knee or hip). WOMAC pain subscale assess amount of pain experienced (score: 0 [no pain] to 10 [extreme pain], higher score = more pain), WOMAC physical function subscale assess degree of difficulty experienced (score: 0 [no difficulty] to 10 [extreme difficulty], higher score = worse physical function) and WOMAC stiffness subscale assess the amount of stiffness experienced (score: 0 [no stiffness] to 10 [extreme stiffness], higher score = higher stiffness). WOMAC average score was the mean of WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscale scores and ranges from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicated worse response. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID7.01-3.77
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7.09-3.40
Tanezumab 5 mg7.10-3.09

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Average Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA of index joint (knee or hip). WOMAC pain subscale assess amount of pain experienced (score: 0 [no pain] to 10 [extreme pain], higher score = more pain), WOMAC physical function subscale assess degree of difficulty experienced (score: 0 [no difficulty] to 10 [extreme difficulty], higher score = worse physical function) and WOMAC stiffness subscale assess the amount of stiffness experienced (score: 0 [no stiffness] to 10 [extreme stiffness], higher score = higher stiffness). WOMAC average score was the mean of WOMAC pain, physical function and stiffness subscale scores and ranges from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicated worse response. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.52-1.95-2.23-3.07-2.64-2.54-2.49-2.44-2.40
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.73-2.28-2.44-3.26-2.74-2.65-2.57-2.56-2.45
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.61-2.34-2.71-3.41-2.88-2.69-2.58-2.48-2.38

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Down Stairs at Week 64

"WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA in index joint (knee or hip). Participants answered a question: How much pain have you had when going up or down the stairs? Participants responded about the amount of pain they experienced when going up or down stairs by using a NRS of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID7.83-3.70
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7.89-3.28
Tanezumab 5 mg7.88-2.97

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Going Up or Down Stairs at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

"WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA in index joint (knee or hip). Participants answered a question: How much pain have you had when going up or down the stairs? Participants responded about the amount of pain they experienced when going up or down stairs by using a NRS of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.66-2.08-2.40-3.18-2.83-2.74-2.70-2.67-2.55
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.81-2.34-2.48-3.34-2.89-2.76-2.69-2.70-2.55
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.66-2.43-2.81-3.50-3.03-2.84-2.74-2.63-2.47

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Week 64

"WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA in index joint (knee or hip). Participants answered a question: How much pain have you had when walking on a flat surface?. Participants responded about the amount of pain they experienced when walking on a flat surface by using a NRS of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID6.86-3.67
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6.86-3.20
Tanezumab 5 mg6.90-2.69

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Item: Pain When Walking on a Flat Surface at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

"WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA in index joint (knee or hip). Participants answered a question: How much pain have you had when walking on a flat surface?. Participants responded about the amount of pain they experienced when walking on a flat surface by using a NRS of 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.46-1.91-2.22-2.95-2.60-2.52-2.48-2.42-2.39
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.54-2.14-2.26-3.01-2.64-2.54-2.48-2.45-2.37
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.39-2.15-2.47-3.13-2.76-2.54-2.42-2.34-2.21

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Week 64

WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Stiffness was defined as a sensation of decreased ease of movement in the index joint (knee or hip). The WOMAC stiffness subscale is a 2-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of stiffness experienced due to OA in the index joint (knee or hip) during the past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 2 individual questions scored on NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC stiffness subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), where higher scores indicated higher stiffness. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID7.09-3.66
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7.15-3.31
Tanezumab 5 mg7.20-3.04

Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Stiffness Subscale at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

WOMAC: self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Stiffness was defined as a sensation of decreased ease of movement in the index joint (knee or hip). The WOMAC stiffness subscale is a 2-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of stiffness experienced due to OA in the index joint (knee or hip) during the past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 2 individual questions scored on NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC stiffness subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no stiffness) to 10 (extreme stiffness), where higher scores indicated higher stiffness. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 16Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.48-1.95-2.16-3.10-2.63-2.52-2.46-2.44-2.42
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.79-2.32-2.46-3.32-2.77-2.68-2.58-2.60-2.46
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.70-2.43-2.79-3.54-2.95-2.74-2.64-2.54-2.46

Change From Baseline in WOMAC Pain Subscale at Week 64

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. The WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to OA of index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 5 individual questions scored on a NRS, which may not be a whole (integer) number. Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID6.96-3.85
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7.01-3.47
Tanezumab 5 mg7.02-3.12

Change From Baseline in WOMAC Pain Subscale at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. The WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to OA of index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 5 individual questions scored on a NRS, which may not be a whole (integer) number. Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.55-1.98-2.27-2.67-2.57-2.52-2.47-2.42
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.65-2.25-2.41-2.73-2.64-2.56-2.54-2.44
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.49-2.29-2.65-2.86-2.68-2.57-2.48-2.37

Change From Baseline in WOMAC Physical Function Subscale at Week 64

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. The WOMAC physical function subscale is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, which may not be a whole (integer) number, scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC physical function subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicated extreme difficulty/worse physical function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineChange at Week 64
NSAID6.99-3.81
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7.09-3.42
Tanezumab 5 mg7.08-3.12

Change From Baseline in WOMAC Physical Function Subscale at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Physical function refers to participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. The WOMAC physical function subscale is a 17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions, which may not be a whole (integer) number, scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC physical function subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicated extreme difficulty/worse physical function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 2Change at Week 4Change at Week 8Change at Week 24Change at Week 32Change at Week 40Change at Week 48Change at Week 56
NSAID-1.55-1.96-2.27-2.66-2.55-2.50-2.45-2.41
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-1.76-2.29-2.46-2.78-2.66-2.56-2.56-2.45
Tanezumab 5 mg-1.64-2.31-2.69-2.88-2.67-2.57-2.49-2.36

Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Osteoarthritis (WPAI:OA) Scores at Week 64

WPAI is 6-question participant rated questionnaire to determine the impact of OA on absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity, and daily activity impairment for a period of 7 days prior to a visit. It yields 4 sub-scores: work time missed (absenteeism), impairment while working (presenteeism), overall work impairment (work productivity) and activity impairment (daily activity impairment). These sub-scores are expressed as an impairment percentage (range from 0 to 100), with higher numbers indicating greater impairment and less productivity. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
Baseline: Percent Work Time MissedBaseline: Percent Impairment While WorkingBaseline: Percent Overall Work ImpairmentBaseline: Percent Activity ImpairmentChange at Week 64: Percent Work Time MissedChange at Week 64:Percent Impairment While WorkingChange at Week 64: Percent Overall Work ImpairmentChange at Week 64: Percent Activity Impairment
NSAID5.259.360.666.7-2.1-26.5-27.0-32.1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6.160.562.168.3-1.8-24.2-24.5-28.7
Tanezumab 5 mg6.058.360.067.94.1-20.7-19.2-24.1

Change From Baseline in Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Osteoarthritis (WPAI:OA) Scores at Weeks 16, 24 and 56

WPAI is 6-question participant rated questionnaire to determine the impact of OA on absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity, and daily activity impairment for a period of 7 days prior to a visit. It yields 4 sub-scores: work time missed (absenteeism), impairment while working (presenteeism), overall work impairment (work productivity) and activity impairment (daily activity impairment). These sub-scores are expressed as an impairment percentage (range from 0 to 100), with higher numbers indicating greater impairment and less productivity. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 16, 24 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Change at Week 16: Percent Work Time MissedChange at Week 16:Percent Impairment While WorkingChange at Week 16: Percent Overall Work ImpairmentChange at Week 16: Percent Activity ImpairmentChange at Week 24: Percent Work Time MissedChange at Week 24:Percent Impairment While WorkingChange at Week 24: Percent Overall Work ImpairmentChange at Week 24: Percent Activity ImpairmentChange at Week 56: Percent Work Time MissedChange at Week 56:Percent Impairment While WorkingChange at Week 56: Percent Overall Work ImpairmentChange at Week 56: Percent Activity Impairment
NSAID-2.92-26.59-27.04-29.38-2.73-25.15-25.90-29.76-0.81-34.59-34.26-36.17
Tanezumab 2.5 mg-2.33-28.07-28.67-30.59-2.70-25.34-26.05-29.88-0.12-31.49-31.21-34.47
Tanezumab 5 mg-3.35-26.94-27.51-31.36-2.19-26.66-27.33-30.53-1.84-29.92-29.29-32.91

European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) Overall Health Utility Score/Index Value

EQ-5D-5L: 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 VAS. EQ-5D health state profile comprises 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. Responses from the five domains were used to calculate a single utility index (the Overall health utility score) where values are less than or equal to (<=) 1. The Overall health utility score for a participant with no problems in all 5 items is 1 for all countries (except for Zimbabwe where it is 0.9), and is reduced where a participant reports greater levels of problems across the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Mean)
BaselineWeek 8Week 16Week 24Week 40Week 56Week 64
NSAID0.620.740.770.770.800.790.75
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0.610.740.770.760.790.780.72
Tanezumab 5 mg0.610.750.780.760.780.770.69

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Duration Since Quitting Job Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was duration since quitting job due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
Interventionyears (Median)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
NSAID2.44.01.8
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2.02.42.0
Tanezumab 5 mg1.81.82.0

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Nights Stayed in the Hospital Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of nights stayed in the hospital due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

Interventionnights (Median)
BaselineWeek 64
NSAID11.02.0

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Nights Stayed in the Hospital Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of nights stayed in the hospital due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,
Interventionnights (Median)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
Tanezumab 2.5 mg12.02.02.0
Tanezumab 5 mg9.02.02.0

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Hospitalized Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of participants who were hospitalized due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
NSAID160
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1158
Tanezumab 5 mg61112

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Quit Job Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of participants who quit job due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
NSAID65266
Tanezumab 2.5 mg472812
Tanezumab 5 mg553518

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Visited the Emergency Room Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of participants who visited the emergency room due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
NSAID1152
Tanezumab 2.5 mg15104
Tanezumab 5 mg23155

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Visits of Services Directly Related to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Visits of services directly related to OA evaluated were: visits to primary care physician, neurologist, rheumatologist, physician assistant or nurse practitioner, pain specialist, orthopedist, physical therapist, chiropractor, alternative medicine or therapy, podiatrist, nutritionist/dietitian, radiologist, home healthcare services and other practitioner. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
Interventionvisits (Median)
Baseline: Primary Care PhysicianBaseline: NeurologistBaseline: RheumatologistBaseline:Physician Assistant or Nurse PractitionerBaseline: Pain SpecialistBaseline: OrthopedistBaseline: Physical TherapistBaseline: ChiropractorBaseline: Alternative Medicine or TherapyBaseline: PodiatristBaseline: Nutritionist/DietitianBaseline: RadiologistBaseline: Home Healthcare ServicesBaseline: Other PractitionerWeek 64: Primary Care PhysicianWeek 64: NeurologistWeek 64: RheumatologistWeek 64: Physician Assistant Or Nurse PractitionerWeek 64: Pain SpecialistWeek 64: OrthopedistWeek 64: Physical TherapistWeek 64: ChiropractorWeek 64: Alternative Medicine or TherapyWeek 64: PodiatristWeek 64: Nutritionist/DietitianWeek 64: RadiologistWeek 64: Home Healthcare ServicesWeek 64: Other PractitionerWeek 80: Primary Care PhysicianWeek 80: NeurologistWeek 80: RheumatologistWeek 80: Physician Assistant or Nurse PractitionerWeek 80: Pain SpecialistWeek 80: OrthopedistWeek 80: Physical TherapistWeek 80: ChiropractorWeek 80: Alternative Medicine or TherapyWeek 80: PodiatristWeek 80: Nutritionist/DietitianWeek 80: RadiologistWeek 80: Home Healthcare ServicesWeek 80: Other Practitioner
NSAID1.01.02.01.01.02.03.03.02.01.01.01.03.02.01.01.01.02.01.01.03.03.02.01.01.01.05.01.01.01.01.01.01.01.03.03.02.03.01.01.01.01.0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1.01.01.01.01.02.04.03.02.01.01.01.02.02.01.01.01.01.01.01.04.03.01.01.02.01.04.01.01.01.01.01.01.51.58.03.03.51.01.01.02.51.0
Tanezumab 5 mg1.01.02.01.02.01.03.03.02.01.01.01.01.02.01.01.01.01.01.01.04.52.02.01.01.01.04.01.01.01.01.01.02.01.05.54.51.01.01.51.04.01.0

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Visits to the Emergency Room Due to Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of visits to the emergency room due to OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

,,
Interventionvisits (Median)
BaselineWeek 64Week 80
NSAID1.01.01.0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1.01.01.0
Tanezumab 5 mg1.01.03.0

Number of Days of Rescue Medication Used During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

In case of inadequate pain relief during the treatment period, acetaminophen/paracetamol up to 3000 mg per day and up to 3 days in a week between baseline and Week 16, and 3000 mg per day and up to 7 days per week between Week 16 and 64 could be taken as rescue medication. Number of days the participants used the rescue medication during the particular study weeks were summarized. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
Interventiondays (Least Squares Mean)
Week 2Week 4Week 8Week 16Week 24Week 32Week 40Week 48Week 56
NSAID2.261.861.651.391.651.781.761.741.74
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2.311.801.651.291.561.671.701.681.73
Tanezumab 5 mg2.291.701.421.251.561.661.711.761.85

Number of Participants Who Took Rescue Medication During Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

In case of inadequate pain relief, acetaminophen/paracetamol up to 3000 mg per day and up to 3 days in a week between baseline and Week 16, and 3000 mg per day and up to 7 days per week between Week 16 and 64 could be taken as rescue medication. Number of participants with any use of rescue medication during the particular study week were summarized. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Week 2Week 4Week 8Week 16Week 24Week 32Week 40Week 48Week 56
NSAID527469418352384390388389397
Tanezumab 2.5 mg567481433353372391391391391
Tanezumab 5 mg548437377330358380388393408

Number of Participants With Anti-Tanezumab Antibodies

Human serum anti-drug antibody (ADA) samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-tanezumab antibodies by using a semi quantitative enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 32, 48, 56, 64 and 80

,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
BaselineWeek 8Week 16Week 32Week 48Week 56Week 64Week 80
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1161209810896826950
Tanezumab 5 mg8393838178666042

Number of Participants With Confirmed Orthostatic Hypotension

Orthostatic hypotension was defined as postural change (supine to standing) that met the following criteria: For systolic BP <=150 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 >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. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
BaselineWeek 2Week 4Week 8Week 16Week 24Week 32Week 40Week 48Week 56Week 64Week 80
NSAID122101010130
Tanezumab 2.5 mg021010212100
Tanezumab 5 mg341211212111

Number of Participants With Progression of Osteoarthritis in the Index Hip (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2 or 3) According to Bland and Altman Method at Weeks 56 and 80

Progression of OA according to Bland-Altman methodology as defined by a decrease in JSW >=1.96 times within-participant standard deviation of the change in JSW in the index hip. The number of participants with progression of OA in the index hip per Bland-Altman methodology are reported. Kellgren-Lawrence grade system was a method of classifying the severity of hip OA using five grades i.e. 0 (no radiographic features of OA), 1 (doubtful JSN and possible osteophytic lipping), 2 (definite osteophytes and possible JSN on anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph), 3 (multiple osteophytes, definite JSN, sclerosis, possible bony deformity), 4 (large osteophytes, marked JSN, severe sclerosis and definite bony deformity). Higher grade indicating worse hip function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 56 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Week 56Week 80
NSAID33
Tanezumab 2.5 mg109
Tanezumab 5 mg109

Number of Participants With Progression of Osteoarthritis in the Index Knee (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 2 or 3) According to Bland and Altman Method at Weeks 56 and 80

Progression of OA according to Bland-Altman as defined by a decrease JSW >=1.96 times within-participant standard deviation of change in JSW. The number of participants with progression of OA in the index knee are summarized separately by the compartment of OA at baseline (medial or lateral). Kellgren-Lawrence grade system was a method of classifying the severity of knee OA using five grades i.e. 0 [no radiographic features of OA], 1 [doubtful joint space narrowing (JSN) and possible osteophytic lipping], 2 [definite osteophytes and possible JSN on anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph], 3 [multiple osteophytes, definite JSN, sclerosis, possible bony deformity], 4 [large osteophytes, marked JSN, severe sclerosis and definite bony deformity]. Higher grade indicating worse knee function. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 56 and 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Decreased medial JSW at Week 56Decreased medial JSW at Week 80Decreased lateral JSW at Week 56Decreased lateral JSW at Week 80
NSAID201697
Tanezumab 2.5 mg332959
Tanezumab 5 mg433884

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 Week 80 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. AEs included both serious and non-serious AEs. Clinically significant physical examination abnormalities were reported as AEs. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
AEsSAEs
NSAID66666
Tanezumab 2.5 mg68178
Tanezumab 5 mg744110

Number of Participants With Treatment-Related Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)

Treatment-related AE was any untoward medical occurrence attributed to study drug in a 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 Week 80 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pre-treatment state. Relatedness to study drug was assessed by the investigator. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

,,
InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Treatment Related AEsTreatment Related SAEs
NSAID1797
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1907
Tanezumab 5 mg25020

Observation Time-Adjusted Event Rate of Participants With Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome

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). Individual joint safety outcome included rapidly progressive OA (type-1 only), rapidly progressive OA (type-2 only), rapidly progressive OA (type-1 or type-2 combined), subchondral insufficiency fracture, primary osteonecrosis, and pathological fracture. Event rate was calculated as the number of events per 1000 participant-years at risk. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

,,
Interventionevents per 1000 participant-years (Number)
Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1Rapidly Progressive OA Type 2Primary OsteonecrosisPathological FractureSubchondral Insufficiency Fracture
NSAID11.910.91.0003.9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg31.428.42.91.005.8
Tanezumab 5 mg63.349.113.91.006.9

Percentage of Participants Achieving Improvement of >=2 Points in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Osteoarthritis at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

"PGA of OA was assessed by asking a question from participants: Considering all the ways your OA in your knee or hip affects you, how are you doing today? Participants responded on a scale ranging from 1-5, where, 1=very good (no symptom 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 and inability to carry out all normal activities). Higher scores indicated worse condition. Percentage of participants with improvement of at least 2 points from baseline in PGA of OA were reported. Missing data was imputed using mixed BOCF/LOCF." (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 2Week 4Week 8Week 16Week 24Week 32Week 40Week 48Week 56Week 64
NSAID11.615.919.028.223.723.621.021.120.825.8
Tanezumab 2.5 mg14.621.421.929.123.423.721.722.021.021.1
Tanezumab 5 mg15.622.423.730.324.822.321.721.719.717.4

Percentage of Participants Achieving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale Reduction >=30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Response at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

Percentage of participants with reduction in WOMAC pain intensity of >= 30%, 50%, 70% and 90% at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64 compared to baseline were classified as responders to WOMAC pain subscale and are reported here. WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. The WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to OA of index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 5 individual questions scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain. Missing data was imputed using mixed BOCF/LOCF. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 2: At least 30% reductionWeek 2: At least 50% reductionWeek 2: At least 70% reductionWeek 2: At least 90% reductionWeek 4: At least 30% reductionWeek 4: At least 50% reductionWeek 4: At least 70% reductionWeek 4: At least 90% reductionWeek 8: At least 30% reductionWeek 8: At least 50% reductionWeek 8: At least 70% reductionWeek 8: At least 90% reductionWeek 16: At least 30% reductionWeek 16: At least 50% reductionWeek 16: At least 70% reductionWeek 16: At least 90% reductionWeek 24: At least 30% reductionWeek 24: At least 50% reductionWeek 24: At least 70% reductionWeek 24: At least 90% reductionWeek 32: At least 30% reductionWeek 32: At least 50% reductionWeek 32: At least 70% reductionWeek 32: At least 90% reductionWeek 40: At least 30% reductionWeek 40: At least 50% reductionWeek 40: At least 70% reductionWeek 40: At least 90% reductionWeek 48: At least 30% reductionWeek 48: At least 50% reductionWeek 48: At least 70% reductionWeek 48: At least 90% reductionWeek 56: At least 30% reductionWeek 56: At least 50% reductionWeek 56: At least 70% reductionWeek 56: At least 90% reductionWeek 64: At least 30% reductionWeek 64: At least 50% reductionWeek 64: At least 70% reductionWeek 64: At least 90% reduction
NSAID32.414.76.21.844.424.911.93.154.132.615.94.268.951.528.88.559.447.529.011.556.346.327.410.054.846.029.310.454.244.428.510.652.743.527.510.181.360.234.212.6
Tanezumab 2.5 mg34.817.87.72.450.230.414.54.355.936.819.34.771.854.928.910.359.449.330.810.356.847.431.210.355.747.230.010.854.646.229.610.353.144.328.210.173.055.431.19.6
Tanezumab 5 mg30.516.57.12.549.530.516.44.959.039.322.46.672.956.535.012.761.149.433.813.355.745.831.512.954.645.230.412.052.943.229.411.451.241.527.010.569.047.324.37.9

Percentage of Participants Achieving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale Reduction of >=30%, >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Response at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

Percentage of participants with reduction in WOMAC physical function of >=(30%,50%,70%,90%) at Weeks 2,4,8,16,24,32,40,48,56 and 64 compared to baseline were classified as responders to WOMAC physical function subscale. WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Physical function:Participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. WOMAC physical function subscale17-item questionnaire used to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in index joint (knee/hip) during past 48 hours, calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC physical subscale on NRS ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), where higher scores indicated extreme difficulty/worse physical function. Missing data was imputed using mixed BOCF/LOCF. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 2: At least 30% reductionWeek 2: At least 50% reductionWeek 2: At least 70% reductionWeek 2: At least 90% reductionWeek 4: At least 30% reductionWeek 4: At least 50% reductionWeek 4: At least 70% reductionWeek 4: At least 90% reductionWeek 8: At least 30% reductionWeek 8: At least 50% reductionWeek 8: At least 70% reductionWeek 8: At least 90% reductionWeek 16: At least 30% reductionWeek 16: At least 50% reductionWeek 16: At least 70% reductionWeek 16: At least 90% reductionWeek 24: At least 30% reductionWeek 24: At least 50% reductionWeek 24: At least 70% reductionWeek 24: At least 90% reductionWeek 32: At least 30% reductionWeek 32: At least 50% reductionWeek 32: At least 70% reductionWeek 32: At least 90% reductionWeek 40: At least 30% reductionWeek 40: At least 50% reductionWeek 40: At least 70% reductionWeek 40: At least 90% reductionWeek 48: At least 30% reductionWeek 48: At least 50% reductionWeek 48: At least 70% reductionWeek 48: At least 90% reductionWeek 56: At least 30% reductionWeek 56: At least 50% reductionWeek 56: At least 70% reductionWeek 56: At least 90% reductionWeek 64: At least 30% reductionWeek 64: At least 50% reductionWeek 64: At least 70% reductionWeek 64: At least 90% reduction
NSAID31.715.45.81.743.223.111.22.655.031.414.14.468.150.127.99.759.046.827.89.855.944.726.89.454.945.027.69.554.643.426.19.452.942.526.09.078.258.933.913.3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg35.820.08.32.149.031.115.54.656.036.618.75.871.653.129.910.759.549.930.411.056.747.229.711.055.545.529.510.354.545.329.110.252.044.126.99.371.452.931.49.4
Tanezumab 5 mg32.117.08.23.249.131.315.85.459.540.021.37.171.855.834.313.461.348.232.713.056.645.730.213.155.545.029.113.253.343.527.912.051.141.326.410.568.044.622.97.9

Percentage of Participants Meeting Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Responder Index at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

Participants were considered as OMERACT-OARSI responders: if the change (improvement) from baseline to week of interest was >=50 percent and >= 2 units in either WOMAC pain subscale or physical function subscale score; if change (improvement) from baseline to week of interest was >=20 percent and >=1 unit in at least 2 of the following: 1) WOMAC pain subscale score, 2) WOMAC physical function subscale score, 3) PGA of OA. WOMAC pain subscale assess amount of pain experienced (score: 0 [no pain] to 10 [extreme pain], higher score = more pain), WOMAC physical function subscale assess degree of difficulty experienced (score: 0 [no difficulty] to 10 [extreme difficulty], higher score = worse physical function) and PGA of OA (score: 1 [very good] to 5 [very poor], higher score = worse condition). Missing data was imputed using mixed baseline/last observation carried forward (BOCF/LOCF). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56 and 64

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 2Week 4Week 8Week 16Week 24Week 32Week 40Week 48Week 56Week 64
NSAID44.856.464.475.161.358.658.257.356.086.5
Tanezumab 2.5 mg46.762.667.578.262.459.258.457.456.579.2
Tanezumab 5 mg43.762.770.378.364.859.958.756.254.575.2

Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Subscale at Weeks 16, 24 and 56

WOMAC: Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. The WOMAC pain subscale is a 5-item questionnaire used to assess the amount of pain experienced due to OA of index joint during past 48 hours. It was calculated as the mean of scores from 5 individual questions scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale score on NRS ranged from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain), where higher scores indicated higher pain. Percentage of participants with cumulative reduction (as percent) (greater than [>] 0% ; >= 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 and 90%; = 100 %) in WOMAC pain subscale from Baseline to Weeks 16, 24 and 56 were reported, participants (%) are reported more than once in categories specified. Missing data was imputed using mixed BOCF/LOCF. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16, 24 and 56

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 16: >0%Week 16: >=10%Week 16: >=20%Week 16: >=30%Week 16: >=40%Week 16: >=50%Week 16: >=60%Week 16: >=70%Week 16: >=80%Week 16: >=90%Week 16: =100%Week 24: >0%Week 24: >=10%Week 24: >=20%Week 24: >=30%Week 24: >=40%Week 24: >=50%Week 24: >=60%Week 24: >=70%Week 24: >=80%Week 24: >=90%Week 24: =100%Week 56: >0%Week 56: >=10%Week 56: >=20%Week 56: >=30%Week 56: >=40%Week 56: >=50%Week 56: >=60%Week 56: >=70%Week 56: >=80%Week 56: >=90%Week 56: =100%
NSAID87.182.875.868.959.951.538.828.818.88.53.364.863.462.159.454.747.538.129.020.211.53.459.758.156.352.748.643.536.327.518.610.14.1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg89.585.078.171.863.754.940.928.919.410.34.466.764.962.259.455.249.340.730.820.610.33.960.859.155.953.148.644.337.028.218.910.14.5
Tanezumab 5 mg87.682.878.372.963.556.544.835.023.912.73.968.266.465.261.155.749.441.233.824.013.34.559.157.054.851.246.841.533.827.019.110.55.3

Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function Subscale at Weeks 16, 24 and 56

Percentage of participants with cumulative reduction (as percent) (> 0 %; >= 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% and 90%; =100%) in WOMAC physical function subscale from baseline to Weeks 16, 24 and 56 were reported. WOMAC:Self-administered, disease-specific questionnaire which assesses clinically important, participant-relevant symptoms for pain, stiffness and physical function in participants with OA. Physical function: participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. WOMAC physical function subscale:17-item questionnaire to assess the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in index joint (knee or hip) during past 48 hours, calculated as mean of the scores from 17 individual questions scored on a NRS. Scores for each question and WOMAC Pain subscale on NRS ranged from 0 (no difficulty) to 10 (extreme difficulty), higher scores indicate extreme difficulty/worse physical function. Missing data was imputed using mixed BOCF/LOCF. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 16, 24 and 56

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Week 16: >0%Week 16: >=10%Week 16: >=20%Week 16: >=30%Week 16: >=40%Week 16: >=50%Week 16: >=60%Week 16: >=70%Week 16: >=80%Week 16: >=90%Week 16: =100%Week 24: >0%Week 24: >=10%Week 24: >=20%Week 24: >=30%Week 24: >=40%Week 24: >=50%Week 24: >=60%Week 24: >=70%Week 24: >=80%Week 24: >=90%Week 24: =100%Week 56: >0%Week 56: >=10%Week 56: >=20%Week 56: >=30%Week 56: >=40%Week 56: >=50%Week 56: >=60%Week 56: >=70%Week 56: >=80%Week 56: >=90%Week 56: =100%
NSAID87.481.473.768.161.050.139.827.917.99.72.065.063.360.859.053.946.837.727.818.99.82.760.157.855.452.948.942.534.826.017.49.03.3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg90.085.078.471.663.753.141.429.920.810.72.966.765.062.659.554.949.941.330.419.911.03.061.159.356.152.048.544.136.726.917.19.32.9
Tanezumab 5 mg88.883.977.371.864.155.844.734.324.413.43.368.666.664.261.356.048.242.032.722.613.03.259.557.354.351.146.341.334.626.417.110.53.6

Percentage of Participants With Individual Adjudicated Joint Safety Outcome

Any participant with incidence of an adjudicated outcome of rapidly progressive OA (type-1 only), rapidly progressive OA (type-2 only), rapidly progressive OA (type-1 or type-2 combined), subchondral insufficiency fracture, primary osteonecrosis, and pathological fracture. Rapidly progressive OA type 1 events were those that the Adjudication Committee considered to have significant loss of JSW >=2 mm within approximately 1 year without gross structural failure. Rapidly progressive OA type 2 events were those considered to have abnormal loss/destruction of bone including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface (e.g., medial femoral condyle) that is not normally present in conventional end-stage OA. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline up to Week 80

,,
Interventionpercentage of participants (Number)
Rapidly Progressive OA Type 1 or 2Rapidly Progressive OA type 1Rapidly Progressive OA type 2Primary OsteonecrosisPathological FractureSubchondral Insufficiency Fracture
NSAID1.21.10.1000.4
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3.22.90.30.100.6
Tanezumab 5 mg6.34.91.40.100.7

Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire Medicine Version II (TSQM v.II) Score With Effectiveness, Side Effects, Convenience, and Overall Satisfaction Responses

TSQM v.II is a self-administered 11-item validated scale that quantified participant's level of satisfaction with study medication (scored on a 7-point Likert scale [1= extremely dissatisfied, 2=very dissatisfied, 3=dissatisfied, 4=somewhat satisfied, 5=satisfied, 6=very satisfied, 7=extremely satisfied]) and dissatisfaction with side effects (3 questions scored on 5 point Likert scale [1= extremely dissatisfied, 2=very dissatisfied, 3=somewhat dissatisfied, 4=slightly dissatisfied, 5=not at all dissatisfied] and 1 question on 2 point scale [0 =No, 1=Yes]). Participants were asked to assess their level of satisfaction taking all things into account. The 11 questions of the TSQM were used to calculate the 4 endpoints of effectiveness, side Effects, convenience and global satisfaction, each scored on a 0-100 scale with 100 being the best level of satisfaction. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 56

,,
Interventionunits on a scale (Least Squares Mean)
Week 16: EffectivenessWeek 16: Side EffectsWeek 16: ConvenienceWeek 16: Global SatisfactionWeek 56: EffectivenessWeek 56: Side EffectsWeek 56: ConvenienceWeek 56: Global Satisfaction
NSAID61.6171.0373.7067.1367.6471.3476.1873.37
Tanezumab 2.5 mg64.2668.6175.5070.3269.7978.6278.0375.31
Tanezumab 5 mg66.2773.3275.7870.6967.9162.0077.6773.37

Health Care Resource Utilization (HCRU): Number of Participants Who Used Any Aids/Devices for Doing Things Due to Osteoarthritis

OA HCRU assessed healthcare usage during the last 3 months (for Baseline and Week 80) and past 8 weeks (for Week 64). Domain evaluated was number of participants who used any aids/devices for doing things. Aids such as walking aid, wheelchair, device or utensil for dress/bathe/eat and any other aids/devices. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 64 and 80

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline: Walking Aid Use72578291Baseline: Walking Aid Use72578290Baseline: Walking Aid Use72578289Baseline: Wheelchair Use72578291Baseline: Wheelchair Use72578289Baseline: Wheelchair Use72578290Baseline: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578289Baseline: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578291Baseline: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578290Baseline: Other Aids Or Devices72578289Baseline: Other Aids Or Devices72578290Baseline: Other Aids Or Devices72578291Week 64: Walking Aid Use72578290Week 64: Walking Aid Use72578289Week 64: Walking Aid Use72578291Week 64: Wheelchair Use72578291Week 64: Wheelchair Use72578290Week 64: Wheelchair Use72578289Week 64: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578291Week 64: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578289Week 64: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578290Week 64: Other Aids Or Devices72578289Week 64: Other Aids Or Devices72578291Week 64: Other Aids Or Devices72578290Week 80: Walking Aid Use72578289Week 80: Walking Aid Use72578291Week 80: Walking Aid Use72578290Week 80: Wheelchair Use72578291Week 80: Wheelchair Use72578289Week 80: Wheelchair Use72578290Week 80: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578290Week 80: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578289Week 80: Device/Utensil to Dress Bathe Eat72578291Week 80: Other Aids Or Devices72578291Week 80: Other Aids Or Devices72578289Week 80: Other Aids Or Devices72578290
NeverRarelySometimesAlwaysOften
Tanezumab 2.5 mg852
Tanezumab 5 mg838
NSAID851
Tanezumab 5 mg18
NSAID24
Tanezumab 2.5 mg71
Tanezumab 5 mg69
NSAID75
Tanezumab 2.5 mg32
Tanezumab 5 mg43
NSAID26
Tanezumab 5 mg29
NSAID19
Tanezumab 2.5 mg992
Tanezumab 5 mg989
NSAID988
NSAID1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg970
Tanezumab 5 mg976
NSAID977
NSAID0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7
NSAID6
Tanezumab 2.5 mg16
NSAID7
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6
NSAID5
Tanezumab 2.5 mg932
Tanezumab 5 mg935
NSAID921
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg27
NSAID41
NSAID14
NSAID10
Tanezumab 2.5 mg662
Tanezumab 5 mg662
NSAID714
Tanezumab 2.5 mg21
Tanezumab 5 mg9
NSAID12
Tanezumab 2.5 mg48
Tanezumab 5 mg47
NSAID37
Tanezumab 2.5 mg20
Tanezumab 5 mg30
NSAID17
Tanezumab 2.5 mg22
Tanezumab 5 mg34
Tanezumab 2.5 mg765
Tanezumab 5 mg776
NSAID794
Tanezumab 2.5 mg760
Tanezumab 5 mg768
NSAID792
NSAID2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg733
Tanezumab 5 mg720
NSAID771
NSAID11
Tanezumab 2.5 mg19
Tanezumab 5 mg26
NSAID8
Tanezumab 5 mg20
Tanezumab 5 mg7
NSAID3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg373
Tanezumab 5 mg322
NSAID386
Tanezumab 2.5 mg12
Tanezumab 5 mg10
Tanezumab 2.5 mg25
Tanezumab 5 mg25
Tanezumab 2.5 mg14
Tanezumab 5 mg17
Tanezumab 2.5 mg8
Tanezumab 5 mg22
Tanezumab 2.5 mg430
Tanezumab 5 mg389
NSAID421
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1
Tanezumab 5 mg1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg425
Tanezumab 5 mg383
NSAID422
Tanezumab 5 mg0
Tanezumab 5 mg6
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3
Tanezumab 5 mg5
Tanezumab 5 mg2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg416
Tanezumab 5 mg375
NSAID410
Tanezumab 2.5 mg4
NSAID4
Tanezumab 5 mg11
Tanezumab 2.5 mg5
Tanezumab 5 mg4
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2
Tanezumab 5 mg3

Number of Participants With Categorical Change From Baseline in Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) at Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 56 and 80

The LEAS is a self-administered scale to assess activity level in participants having total knee arthroplasty. The LEAS scale reflected four levels of lower-extremity activity (1)housebound(unable to walk or a minimal ability to walk) (2)more ordinary walking about the house (3)walking about the community (4)walking about the community as well as substantial work or exercise. It consisted of 12 questions resulting in 18-level scale that allowed participants to select a single description that most represented his or her self-perceived activity level. The final score was simply the number of the descriptor selected by the participant as being most representative of his or her activity level. The minimum possible score was 1(entirely bedbound) and the maximum possible score was 18(currently competitive athlete). Higher score indicated increased activity. Categorical changes from baseline were reported in terms of improvement (Change >0), No change and worsening (Change less than [<] 0). (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 56 and 80

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Change at Week 472578289Change at Week 472578291Change at Week 472578290Change at Week 872578290Change at Week 872578291Change at Week 872578289Change at Week 1672578290Change at Week 1672578291Change at Week 1672578289Change at Week 2472578289Change at Week 2472578290Change at Week 2472578291Change at Week 5672578289Change at Week 5672578291Change at Week 5672578290Change at Week 8072578289Change at Week 8072578290Change at Week 8072578291
ImprovementNo ChangeWorsening
Tanezumab 2.5 mg423
Tanezumab 5 mg421
NSAID411
Tanezumab 2.5 mg370
Tanezumab 5 mg394
NSAID369
Tanezumab 2.5 mg207
Tanezumab 5 mg180
NSAID214
Tanezumab 2.5 mg454
Tanezumab 5 mg443
NSAID445
Tanezumab 2.5 mg325
Tanezumab 5 mg362
NSAID348
Tanezumab 2.5 mg221
Tanezumab 5 mg190
NSAID201
Tanezumab 2.5 mg488
Tanezumab 5 mg470
NSAID477
Tanezumab 2.5 mg288
Tanezumab 5 mg312
NSAID312
Tanezumab 2.5 mg224
Tanezumab 5 mg213
NSAID205
Tanezumab 2.5 mg478
Tanezumab 5 mg458
NSAID467
Tanezumab 2.5 mg277
Tanezumab 5 mg302
NSAID291
Tanezumab 2.5 mg245
Tanezumab 5 mg235
NSAID236
Tanezumab 2.5 mg486
Tanezumab 5 mg429
NSAID461
Tanezumab 2.5 mg270
Tanezumab 5 mg314
NSAID300
Tanezumab 2.5 mg244
Tanezumab 5 mg252
NSAID233
Tanezumab 2.5 mg220
Tanezumab 5 mg196
NSAID227
Tanezumab 2.5 mg105
Tanezumab 5 mg97
NSAID125
Tanezumab 2.5 mg113
Tanezumab 5 mg115
NSAID80

Number of Participants With Responses to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Anxiety/ Depression Domain

Number of participants with anxiety/ depression domain responses of EQ-5D-5L were provided. 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 the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline72578289Baseline72578290Baseline72578291Week 872578290Week 872578291Week 872578289Week 1672578289Week 1672578290Week 1672578291Week 2472578291Week 2472578289Week 2472578290Week 4072578289Week 4072578290Week 4072578291Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291Week 6472578289Week 6472578290Week 6472578291
Severely anxious or depressedExtremely anxious or depressedNot anxious or depressedSlightly anxious or depressedModerately anxious or depressed
Tanezumab 2.5 mg560
Tanezumab 5 mg570
NSAID585
Tanezumab 2.5 mg252
Tanezumab 5 mg235
NSAID236
Tanezumab 2.5 mg155
Tanezumab 5 mg151
NSAID144
Tanezumab 2.5 mg28
Tanezumab 5 mg37
NSAID26
Tanezumab 2.5 mg5
NSAID3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg693
Tanezumab 5 mg703
NSAID664
Tanezumab 2.5 mg189
Tanezumab 5 mg180
NSAID206
Tanezumab 2.5 mg64
Tanezumab 5 mg71
NSAID75
Tanezumab 2.5 mg9
Tanezumab 5 mg7
NSAID9
Tanezumab 5 mg5
Tanezumab 2.5 mg680
Tanezumab 5 mg701
NSAID701
Tanezumab 2.5 mg170
Tanezumab 5 mg147
NSAID151
Tanezumab 2.5 mg53
Tanezumab 5 mg62
NSAID53
NSAID8
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2
Tanezumab 5 mg4
NSAID2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg611
Tanezumab 5 mg606
NSAID599
Tanezumab 2.5 mg147
Tanezumab 5 mg131
Tanezumab 2.5 mg52
Tanezumab 5 mg66
NSAID58
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7
Tanezumab 5 mg10
NSAID11
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
Tanezumab 5 mg3
NSAID1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg442
Tanezumab 5 mg429
NSAID400
Tanezumab 2.5 mg92
Tanezumab 5 mg82
NSAID107
Tanezumab 2.5 mg24
Tanezumab 5 mg35
NSAID21
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3
Tanezumab 5 mg6
NSAID7
Tanezumab 5 mg1
NSAID0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg351
Tanezumab 5 mg330
NSAID338
Tanezumab 2.5 mg88
Tanezumab 5 mg90
NSAID86
Tanezumab 2.5 mg18
Tanezumab 5 mg33
NSAID34
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1
Tanezumab 5 mg2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg308
Tanezumab 5 mg275
NSAID315
Tanezumab 2.5 mg104
Tanezumab 5 mg96
NSAID100
Tanezumab 2.5 mg29
Tanezumab 5 mg46
Tanezumab 2.5 mg8
Tanezumab 5 mg9
NSAID5

Number of Participants With Responses to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Mobility Domain

Number of participants with mobility domain responses of EQ-5D-5L were provided. 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 the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline72578290Baseline72578289Baseline72578291Week 872578290Week 872578291Week 872578289Week 1672578289Week 1672578290Week 1672578291Week 2472578289Week 2472578290Week 2472578291Week 4072578289Week 4072578290Week 4072578291Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291Week 6472578289Week 6472578290Week 6472578291
Severe problem in walkingModerate problem in walkingNo problem in walkingSlight problem in walkingUnable to walk
Tanezumab 2.5 mg26
Tanezumab 5 mg20
NSAID23
Tanezumab 2.5 mg203
Tanezumab 5 mg192
NSAID194
Tanezumab 2.5 mg567
Tanezumab 5 mg579
NSAID588
Tanezumab 2.5 mg204
Tanezumab 5 mg202
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg223
Tanezumab 5 mg241
NSAID216
Tanezumab 2.5 mg374
Tanezumab 5 mg411
NSAID392
Tanezumab 2.5 mg318
Tanezumab 5 mg266
NSAID301
Tanezumab 2.5 mg41
Tanezumab 5 mg48
NSAID44
Tanezumab 5 mg0
NSAID3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg299
Tanezumab 5 mg319
NSAID292
Tanezumab 2.5 mg388
Tanezumab 5 mg371
NSAID412
Tanezumab 2.5 mg199
Tanezumab 5 mg196
NSAID185
Tanezumab 2.5 mg27
Tanezumab 5 mg34
NSAID26
Tanezumab 2.5 mg259
Tanezumab 5 mg261
NSAID260
Tanezumab 2.5 mg308
Tanezumab 5 mg310
NSAID337
Tanezumab 2.5 mg216
Tanezumab 5 mg200
NSAID186
Tanezumab 2.5 mg34
Tanezumab 5 mg43
NSAID29
Tanezumab 5 mg2
NSAID1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg217
Tanezumab 5 mg211
NSAID218
Tanezumab 2.5 mg215
Tanezumab 5 mg209
NSAID217
Tanezumab 2.5 mg110
Tanezumab 5 mg106
Tanezumab 5 mg27
Tanezumab 2.5 mg157
Tanezumab 5 mg147
NSAID170
Tanezumab 2.5 mg205
Tanezumab 5 mg166
NSAID189
Tanezumab 2.5 mg77
Tanezumab 5 mg120
NSAID91
Tanezumab 2.5 mg19
Tanezumab 5 mg24
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg98
Tanezumab 5 mg66
NSAID107
Tanezumab 2.5 mg156
Tanezumab 5 mg156
NSAID205
Tanezumab 2.5 mg150
Tanezumab 5 mg151
NSAID121
Tanezumab 2.5 mg45
Tanezumab 5 mg54
NSAID21
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1
Tanezumab 5 mg1
NSAID0

Number of Participants With Responses to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Pain/Discomfort Domain

Number of participants with pain/discomfort domain responses of EQ-5D-5L were provided. 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 the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline72578289Baseline72578290Baseline72578291Week 872578291Week 872578290Week 872578289Week 1672578290Week 1672578289Week 1672578291Week 2472578289Week 2472578290Week 2472578291Week 4072578290Week 4072578289Week 4072578291Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291Week 6472578289Week 6472578290Week 6472578291
Slight pain or discomfortModerate pain or discomfortSevere pain or discomfortExtreme pain or discomfortNo pain or discomfort
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6
NSAID5
Tanezumab 2.5 mg81
Tanezumab 5 mg75
NSAID86
Tanezumab 2.5 mg548
Tanezumab 5 mg574
NSAID588
Tanezumab 2.5 mg334
Tanezumab 5 mg314
NSAID295
Tanezumab 2.5 mg31
Tanezumab 5 mg28
NSAID20
Tanezumab 2.5 mg82
Tanezumab 5 mg102
NSAID83
Tanezumab 2.5 mg433
Tanezumab 5 mg465
NSAID434
Tanezumab 2.5 mg369
Tanezumab 5 mg327
NSAID365
Tanezumab 2.5 mg68
Tanezumab 5 mg68
NSAID71
NSAID3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg128
Tanezumab 5 mg163
NSAID131
Tanezumab 2.5 mg508
Tanezumab 5 mg482
NSAID515
Tanezumab 2.5 mg235
Tanezumab 5 mg225
NSAID217
Tanezumab 2.5 mg39
Tanezumab 5 mg44
NSAID46
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3
Tanezumab 5 mg6
NSAID6
Tanezumab 2.5 mg117
Tanezumab 5 mg148
NSAID130
Tanezumab 2.5 mg413
Tanezumab 5 mg384
NSAID413
Tanezumab 2.5 mg213
Tanezumab 5 mg218
NSAID215
Tanezumab 2.5 mg70
Tanezumab 5 mg62
NSAID51
Tanezumab 2.5 mg4
Tanezumab 5 mg4
NSAID4
Tanezumab 2.5 mg97
Tanezumab 5 mg122
NSAID110
Tanezumab 2.5 mg298
Tanezumab 5 mg264
NSAID308
Tanezumab 2.5 mg139
Tanezumab 5 mg130
NSAID104
Tanezumab 2.5 mg25
Tanezumab 5 mg30
NSAID13
Tanezumab 2.5 mg2
Tanezumab 5 mg7
NSAID0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg76
Tanezumab 5 mg90
NSAID85
Tanezumab 2.5 mg248
Tanezumab 5 mg211
NSAID259
Tanezumab 2.5 mg111
Tanezumab 5 mg128
NSAID103
Tanezumab 2.5 mg23
Tanezumab 5 mg26
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
Tanezumab 5 mg3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg45
Tanezumab 5 mg35
NSAID62
Tanezumab 2.5 mg169
Tanezumab 5 mg115
NSAID191
Tanezumab 2.5 mg165
Tanezumab 5 mg191
NSAID171
Tanezumab 2.5 mg66
Tanezumab 5 mg76
NSAID29
Tanezumab 2.5 mg5
Tanezumab 5 mg11
NSAID1

Number of Participants With Responses to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Self-Care Domain

Number of participants with self-care domain responses of EQ-5D-5L were provided. 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 the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline72578289Baseline72578290Baseline72578291Week 872578289Week 872578290Week 872578291Week 1672578289Week 1672578290Week 1672578291Week 2472578289Week 2472578290Week 2472578291Week 4072578289Week 4072578290Week 4072578291Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291Week 6472578289Week 6472578290Week 6472578291
Unable to wash or dressSlight problems washing or dressingModerate problems washing or dressingSevere problems washing or dressingNo problems washing or dressing
Tanezumab 2.5 mg251
Tanezumab 5 mg242
NSAID270
Tanezumab 2.5 mg315
Tanezumab 5 mg295
NSAID319
Tanezumab 2.5 mg361
Tanezumab 5 mg389
NSAID350
Tanezumab 2.5 mg73
Tanezumab 5 mg69
NSAID55
Tanezumab 2.5 mg551
Tanezumab 5 mg569
NSAID542
Tanezumab 2.5 mg270
Tanezumab 5 mg261
NSAID276
Tanezumab 2.5 mg126
Tanezumab 5 mg128
NSAID134
Tanezumab 2.5 mg8
Tanezumab 5 mg8
NSAID3
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg610
Tanezumab 5 mg597
NSAID583
Tanezumab 2.5 mg216
Tanezumab 5 mg231
NSAID246
Tanezumab 2.5 mg81
Tanezumab 5 mg87
NSAID77
Tanezumab 2.5 mg6
Tanezumab 5 mg5
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg504
Tanezumab 5 mg504
NSAID527
Tanezumab 2.5 mg214
Tanezumab 5 mg200
NSAID192
Tanezumab 2.5 mg91
Tanezumab 5 mg102
NSAID86
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7
Tanezumab 5 mg9
NSAID8
Tanezumab 5 mg1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg377
Tanezumab 5 mg359
NSAID371
Tanezumab 2.5 mg140
NSAID125
Tanezumab 5 mg54
NSAID38
Tanezumab 5 mg4
NSAID0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg305
Tanezumab 5 mg294
NSAID291
Tanezumab 2.5 mg107
Tanezumab 5 mg115
NSAID122
Tanezumab 2.5 mg42
Tanezumab 5 mg47
NSAID40
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3
Tanezumab 5 mg2
NSAID5
NSAID1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg233
Tanezumab 5 mg192
NSAID264
Tanezumab 2.5 mg142
Tanezumab 5 mg136
NSAID131
Tanezumab 2.5 mg66
Tanezumab 5 mg89
NSAID57
Tanezumab 5 mg11
NSAID2
Tanezumab 5 mg0

Number of Participants With Responses to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L): Usual Activities Domain

Number of participants with usual activities domain responses of EQ-5D-5L were provided. 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 the five dimensions. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Baseline, Weeks 8, 16, 24, 40, 56 and 64

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Baseline72578290Baseline72578289Baseline72578291Week 872578289Week 872578291Week 872578290Week 1672578290Week 1672578289Week 1672578291Week 2472578289Week 2472578290Week 2472578291Week 4072578289Week 4072578290Week 4072578291Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291Week 6472578290Week 6472578289Week 6472578291
No problems doing usual activitiesSlight problems doing usual activitiesModerate problems doing usual activitiesSevere problems doing usual activitiesUnable to do usual activities
Tanezumab 2.5 mg22
Tanezumab 5 mg24
NSAID38
Tanezumab 5 mg218
NSAID225
Tanezumab 2.5 mg538
Tanezumab 5 mg551
NSAID561
Tanezumab 2.5 mg208
Tanezumab 5 mg201
NSAID169
Tanezumab 2.5 mg3
Tanezumab 5 mg1
Tanezumab 2.5 mg229
Tanezumab 5 mg266
NSAID221
Tanezumab 5 mg411
NSAID426
Tanezumab 2.5 mg292
Tanezumab 5 mg256
NSAID274
Tanezumab 2.5 mg33
Tanezumab 5 mg31
NSAID35
Tanezumab 2.5 mg0
NSAID0
Tanezumab 2.5 mg302
Tanezumab 5 mg333
NSAID310
Tanezumab 2.5 mg402
Tanezumab 5 mg382
NSAID408
Tanezumab 2.5 mg184
Tanezumab 5 mg182
NSAID172
Tanezumab 2.5 mg24
Tanezumab 5 mg21
NSAID24
Tanezumab 2.5 mg1
Tanezumab 5 mg2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg262
Tanezumab 5 mg290
NSAID273
Tanezumab 2.5 mg353
Tanezumab 5 mg315
NSAID344
Tanezumab 2.5 mg174
NSAID166
Tanezumab 2.5 mg27
Tanezumab 5 mg27
NSAID29
Tanezumab 2.5 mg225
Tanezumab 5 mg221
NSAID218
Tanezumab 2.5 mg239
Tanezumab 5 mg213
NSAID233
Tanezumab 2.5 mg85
Tanezumab 5 mg97
NSAID74
Tanezumab 2.5 mg12
Tanezumab 5 mg20
NSAID10
Tanezumab 2.5 mg155
Tanezumab 5 mg170
NSAID182
Tanezumab 2.5 mg211
Tanezumab 5 mg179
NSAID199
Tanezumab 2.5 mg79
Tanezumab 5 mg86
NSAID69
Tanezumab 2.5 mg13
Tanezumab 5 mg22
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg101
Tanezumab 5 mg69
NSAID129
Tanezumab 2.5 mg173
Tanezumab 5 mg163
NSAID197
Tanezumab 2.5 mg138
Tanezumab 5 mg155
NSAID115
Tanezumab 2.5 mg37
Tanezumab 5 mg37
NSAID12
Tanezumab 5 mg4
NSAID1

Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) Score at Weeks 16 and 56: Participant Global Preference Assessment- Overall, do You Prefer the Drug That You Received in This Study to Previous Treatment?

The mPRTI is a self-administered questionnaire containing participant global preference assessment (to assess previous treatment and preference to continue using the investigational product) and participant willingness to use drug again assessment. To assess preference to continue using the investigational product, participants responded using IRT on a 5 point Likert scale from 1-5, where, 1= yes, I definitely prefer the drug that I am receiving now, 2= I have a slight preference for the 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 the investigational product. Number of participants who responded for the specified question were reported. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 56

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Week 1672578291Week 1672578290Week 1672578289Week 5672578289Week 5672578291Week 5672578290
Yes, definitely prefer the study drugSlight preference for the study drugNo preference either waySlight preference for my previous treatmentNo, definitely prefer my previous treatment
Tanezumab 2.5 mg577
Tanezumab 5 mg597
NSAID531
Tanezumab 2.5 mg141
Tanezumab 5 mg169
NSAID158
Tanezumab 2.5 mg149
Tanezumab 5 mg114
NSAID164
Tanezumab 2.5 mg28
Tanezumab 5 mg34
NSAID36
Tanezumab 2.5 mg44
Tanezumab 5 mg40
NSAID47
Tanezumab 2.5 mg342
Tanezumab 5 mg323
NSAID302
Tanezumab 2.5 mg70
Tanezumab 5 mg75
NSAID89
Tanezumab 2.5 mg61
Tanezumab 5 mg65
NSAID71
Tanezumab 2.5 mg16
Tanezumab 5 mg16
NSAID13
Tanezumab 2.5 mg9
Tanezumab 5 mg8
NSAID14

Patient Reported Treatment Impact Assessment-Modified (mPRTI) Score at Weeks 16 and 56: Participant Willingness to Use Drug Again Assessment- Willing to Use the Same Drug That You Have Received in This Study for Your Osteoarthritis Pain?

The mPRTI is a self-administered questionnaire containing participant global preference assessment (to assess previous treatment and preference to continue using the investigational product) and participant willingness to use drug again assessment. To assess participant willingness to use drug again, participants responded using IRT on a 5 point likert scale 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 indicate lesser willingness to use the investigational product. Number of participants who responded for the specified question were reported. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 56

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Week 1672578289Week 1672578291Week 1672578290Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291
Yes, definitely want to use the same drug againMight want to use the same drug againI am not sureMight not want to use the same drug againNo:definitely wouldn't want to use same drug again
Tanezumab 2.5 mg627
Tanezumab 5 mg641
NSAID560
Tanezumab 2.5 mg138
Tanezumab 5 mg154
NSAID169
Tanezumab 2.5 mg108
Tanezumab 5 mg96
NSAID134
Tanezumab 2.5 mg19
Tanezumab 5 mg21
NSAID23
Tanezumab 2.5 mg47
Tanezumab 5 mg42
NSAID50
Tanezumab 2.5 mg352
Tanezumab 5 mg341
NSAID310
Tanezumab 2.5 mg78
Tanezumab 5 mg75
NSAID97
Tanezumab 2.5 mg54
Tanezumab 5 mg46
NSAID58
Tanezumab 2.5 mg4
Tanezumab 5 mg11
Tanezumab 2.5 mg10
Tanezumab 5 mg14
NSAID12

Patient-Reported Treatment Impact Assessment- Modified (mPRTI) Score at Weeks 16 and 56: Participant Global Preference Assessment- What is The Current or Most Recent Treatment You Were Receiving for Osteoarthritis Pain Before Enrolling?

The mPRTI is a self-administered questionnaire containing participant's global preference assessment (to assess previous treatment and preference to continue using the investigational product) and participant's willingness to use drug again assessment. To assess current or most recent treatment, participants responded for, 1=injectable prescription medicines, 2=prescription medicines taken by mouth, 3=surgery, 4=prescription medicines and surgery and 5=no treatment. Number of participants who responded for the specified question were reported. (NCT02528188)
Timeframe: Weeks 16 and 56

InterventionParticipants (Count of Participants)
Week 1672578289Week 1672578291Week 1672578290Week 5672578289Week 5672578290Week 5672578291
SurgeryPrescription medicines and surgeryInjectable prescription medicinesPrescription medicines taken by mouthNo treatment
Tanezumab 2.5 mg99
Tanezumab 5 mg98
NSAID82
Tanezumab 2.5 mg611
Tanezumab 5 mg633
NSAID647
Tanezumab 2.5 mg7
Tanezumab 5 mg7
NSAID9
Tanezumab 2.5 mg33
Tanezumab 5 mg28
NSAID27
Tanezumab 2.5 mg189
Tanezumab 5 mg188
NSAID171
Tanezumab 2.5 mg44
Tanezumab 5 mg47
NSAID40
Tanezumab 2.5 mg307
Tanezumab 5 mg296
NSAID324
Tanezumab 2.5 mg8
Tanezumab 5 mg4
NSAID2
Tanezumab 2.5 mg20
Tanezumab 5 mg18
NSAID20
Tanezumab 2.5 mg119
Tanezumab 5 mg122
NSAID103

Incidence of Toxicities as Assessed by NCI CTCAE v. 4.0

The overall toxicity rates (percentages) for grade 3 or higher adverse events considered at least possibly related to treatment (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Up to 5 years

Interventionpercentage of patients (Number)
Arm I (Arm A: Celecoxib + Standard Chemotherapy)61.04
Arm II (Arm B: Placebo + Standard Chemotherapy)55.06

Overall Survival

Overall survival time is defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. The median and 95% confidence intervals are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Time between randomization and death from any cause, assessed up to 5 years

Interventionmonths (Median)
Arm I (Arm A: Celecoxib + Standard Chemotherapy)11.4
Arm II (Arm B: Placebo + Standard Chemotherapy)12.5

Prognostic Value of Urinary Prostaglandin Metabolites (PGE-M) Levels for Worse PFS for Patients Who Had Baseline Urinary PGE-M Above/Below the First Quartile (Q1)

Prognostic value of urinary prostaglandin metabolites (PGE-M) levels for worse PFS for patients who had baseline urinary PGE-M above/below the first quartile (Q1, 10.09). Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death resulting from any cause, whichever comes first. Progression is defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. The median and 95% confidence intervals are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Up to 5 years

Interventionmonths (Median)
PGE-M < Q17.7
PGE-M >= Q14.9

Prognostic Value of Urinary Prostaglandin Metabolites (PGE-M) Levels for Worse PFS for Patients Who Had Baseline Urinary PGE-M Above/Below the Median Quartile (Q2)

prognostic value of urinary prostaglandin metabolites (PGE-M) levels for worse PFS for patients who had baseline urinary PGE-M above/below the median quartile (Q2, 15.38). Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death resulting from any cause, whichever comes first. Progression is defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. The median and 95% confidence intervals are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Up to 5 years

Interventionmonths (Median)
PGE-M < Q26.2
PGE-M >= Q24.2

Prognostic Value of Urinary Prostaglandin Metabolites (PGE-M) Levels for Worse PFS for Patients Who Had Baseline Urinary PGE-M Above/Below the Third Quartile (Q3)

Prognostic value of urinary prostaglandin metabolites (PGE-M) levels for worse PFS for patients who had baseline urinary PGE-M above/below the median quartile (Q3, 27.86). Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death resulting from any cause, whichever comes first. Progression is defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. The median and 95% confidence intervals are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Up to 5 years

Interventionmonths (Median)
PGE-M < Q36.0
PGE-M >= Q33.0

Progression-free Survival

Progression free survival (PFS) is defined as the time from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death resulting from any cause, whichever comes first. Progression is defined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. The median and 95% confidence intervals are estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Time between randomization and disease relapse or death from any cause, assessed up to 5 years

Interventionmonths (Median)
Arm I (Arm A: Celecoxib + Standard Chemotherapy)5.16
Arm II (Arm B: Placebo + Standard Chemotherapy)5.26

Response Rate

The response rate (percentage) is the percent of patients whose best response was Complete Response (CR) or Partial Response (PR) as defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Percentage of successes will be estimated by 100 times the number of successes divided by the total number of evaluable patients. Response rates (including complete and partial response) will be tested using Fisher's exact test (NCT01041781)
Timeframe: Up to 5 years

Interventionpercentage of patients (Number)
Arm I (Arm A: Celecoxib + Standard Chemotherapy)40
Arm II (Arm B: Placebo + Standard Chemotherapy)35

Clinical Outcome: Documented Progression

Response evaluation was based on pathologic examination of the degree of dysplasia observed and recorded by an expert head and neck pathologist. Pathologic complete response was defined as complete disappearance of dysplasia from the epithelium. Pathologic partial response was defined as improvement of dysplasia by at least one degree (i.e., severe dysplasia becomes moderate dysplasia). Pathologic minor response or stable disease was defined as minor focal improvement without change of degree of dysplasia (i.e., focal improvement from moderate to mild dysplasia with still moderate dysplasia overall) or no pathologic changes after treatment. Pathologic progressive disease was defined as worsening by at least one degree of dysplasia (i.e., mild to moderate dysplasia) or development of invasive cancer on or following treatment. (NCT00314262)
Timeframe: 12 months from time of enrollment

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Complete remission (CR)Partial remission (PR)Progressive disease (PD)Stable disease (SDi)
Erlotinib & Celecoxib3112

Clinical Outcome: Progression to a Higher-grade Dysplasia or Carcinoma

Response evaluation was based on pathologic examination of the degree of dysplasia observed and recorded by an expert head and neck pathologist. Pathologic complete response was defined as complete disappearance of dysplasia from the epithelium. Pathologic partial response was defined as improvement of dysplasia by at least one degree (i.e., severe dysplasia becomes moderate dysplasia). Pathologic minor response or stable disease was defined as minor focal improvement without change of degree of dysplasia (i.e., focal improvement from moderate to mild dysplasia with still moderate dysplasia overall) or no pathologic changes after treatment. Pathologic progressive disease was defined as worsening by at least one degree of dysplasia (i.e., mild to moderate dysplasia) or development of invasive cancer on or following treatment. (NCT00314262)
Timeframe: Up to 55 months from initiation of therapy. Median duration of follow-up was 36 months.

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Stage I invasive carcinomaStage II oral cavity carcinomaInvasive squamous cell carcinomaRecurrent moderate dysplasiaRecurrent severe dysplasiaRecurrent high-grade dysplasiaComplete remission
Erlotinib & Celecoxib1111111

Dose Escalation and Toxicity: Toxicities Including Grades 1 to 4

Participants received a fixed dose of celecoxib 400 mg orally BID continuously for 6 months. Erlotinib was dose escalated at 3 dose levels of 50, 75, and 100 mg orally every day for 6 months. Dose escalation followed a standard 3+3 escalation design. (NCT00314262)
Timeframe: 12 months from time of enrollment

Interventionparticipants (Number)
Abdominal cramping, Grade 1Alopecia, Grade 1Anemia, Grade 1Anemia, Grade 2Anxiety, Grade 1Decreased protein, Grade 1Leukopenia, Grade 1Leukopenia, Grade 2Depression, Grade 1Diarrhea, Grade 1Dry eyes, Grade 1Dry skin, Grade 1Elevated LDH, Grade 1Elevated serum creatinine, Grade 1Elevated serum creatinine, Grade 2Elevated alkaline phosphatase, Grade 1Elevated ALT, Grade 1Elevated AST, Grade 4Fatigue, Grade 1Hyperbilirubinemia, Grade 1Hypercholesterolemia, Grade 1Hyperglycemia, Grade 1Hyperglycemia, Grade 2Hypoalbuminemia, Grade 1Hypoalbuminemia, Grade 2Hypocalcemia, Grade 1Hypoglycemia, Grade 1Hypoglycemia, Grade 2Hypokalemia, Grade 1Hyponatremia, Grade 1Mouth sores, Grade 1Mouth sores, Grade 2Mucositis, Grade 1Mucositis, Grade 3Nausea, Grade 1Neuropathy, Grade 1Pruritis, Grade 1Rash, Grade 1Rash, Grade 3Shortness of breath, Grade 1Strep throat, Grade 2Urosepsis, Grade 3Vomiting, Grade 1
Erlotinib & Celecoxib2221221135463413546227231411239331432823112

Progression Free Survival

For determining progression-free survival, progression was determined using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors Criteria (RECIST v1.0). Progression was defined as a 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions, or a measurable increase in a non-target lesion, or the appearance of new lesions. (NCT00771953)
Timeframe: From the date of randomization until the first date that recurrent or progressive disease is objectively documented.

Interventiondays (Median)
Apricoxib Plus Docetaxel75
Placebo Plus Docetaxel97
Apricoxib Plus Pemetrexed103
Placebo Plus Pemetrexed98

Changes in Lesional Sizes

The remaining oral dysplasia lesion will be inspected at each follow up appointment (every 10-14 days). Biopsies will be immediately conducted on patients with any indication of malignant transformation including indurated, rolled borders, nonhealing ulcers, etc. Accordingly, these patients will withdraw from the trial. Participants will also be monitored for any changes consistent with contact mucositis e.g. soreness and erythema at application site. Clinical photographs were taken for the patients records. Pre treatment and post treatment photographs, with a ruler in place, were used for accurate pre and post treatment size measurement. NOTE: if treatment is beneficial, lesional size will decrease which will be reflected as a negative number. (NCT01192204)
Timeframe: pretreatment and posttreatment (3 months treatment duration)

Interventionmm^2 (Mean)
10% FBR Gel-26.12
Placebo Gel18.12

Treatment Changes in Loss of Heterozygosity Events

Laboratory experiments will be conducted to assess the effects of gel treatment on pre and post loss of heterozygosity (LOH) events at loci associated with tumor suppressor genes. (NCT01192204)
Timeframe: Before and after the 3 month treatment duration

InterventionLOH events (Mean)
10% FBR Gel0.9
Placebo Gel0.4

Light Microscopic Histologically Scored Diagnoses Pretreatment to Post Treatment

A hemisection of lesional tissue will be conducted before the 3 month treatment to establish a diagnosis and provide a pretreatment baseline for the experimental parameters. Anl excisional biopsy of the treatment site including any remaining residual lesional tissue (excision of oral dysplastic lesions is consistent with current standards of care) will be obtained after 3 months of treatment to provide a posttreatment diagnosis. The 0 to 8 histologic scale was:0=normal with or without hyperkeratosis BEST OUTCOME, 1=atypia, 2=mild dysplasia, 3=mild-moderate dysplasia, 4=moderate dysplasia,5=moderate-severe dysplasia,6=severe dysplasia, 7=carcinoma in situ, 8=invasive oral squamous cell carcinoma (WORST OUTCOME). (NCT01192204)
Timeframe: Before and after the 3 month treatment.

,
Interventionunit on histologic grade scale (Mean)
PretreatmentPosttreatment
10% FBR Gel2.361.9
Placebo Gel2.832.58

Reviews

7 reviews available for celecoxib and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
C-reactive protein as an effector molecule in Covid-19 pathogenesis.
    Reviews in medical virology, 2021, Volume: 31, Issue:6

    Topics: ADAM17 Protein; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Pr

2021
COX-2 as a potential biomarker and therapeutic target in melanoma.
    Cancer biology & medicine, 2020, 02-15, Volume: 17, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biomarkers, Tumor; Celecoxib; Clinical Tria

2020
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents to induce regression and prevent the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2018, 02-12, Volume: 2

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 In

2018
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents to induce regression and prevent the progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
    The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014, Apr-09, Issue:4

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitor

2014
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of heart failure exacerbation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    European journal of internal medicine, 2015, Volume: 26, Issue:9

    Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Disease Progression; Heart Failure; Humans; Lact

2015
Enhancing radiotherapy with cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme inhibitors: a rational advance?
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2003, Oct-01, Volume: 95, Issue:19

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Apoptosis; Celecoxib; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinical Trials as Top

2003
Cardiovascular effects of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.
    Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 2004, Volume: 2, Issue:2

    Topics: Cardiotonic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Celecoxib; Clinical Trials as To

2004

Trials

28 trials available for celecoxib and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
A Protective Role for Arachidonic Acid Metabolites against Advanced Colorectal Adenoma in a Phase III Trial of Selenium.
    Nutrients, 2021, Oct-29, Volume: 13, Issue:11

    Topics: Adenoma; Aged; Arachidonic Acid; Celecoxib; Colorectal Neoplasms; Dietary Supplements; Disease Progr

2021
Combination of ciprofloxacin/celecoxib as a novel therapeutic strategy for ALS.
    Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration, 2023, Volume: 24, Issue:3-4

    Topics: Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Biomarkers; Celecoxib; Ciprofloxacin; COVID-19; Disease Progression;

2023
Effect of Concurrent Chemoradiation With Celecoxib vs Concurrent Chemoradiation Alone on Survival Among Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer With and Without Cyclooxygenase 2 Genetic Variants: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.
    JAMA network open, 2019, 12-02, Volume: 2, Issue:12

    Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Celecoxib; Chemoradi

2019
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Tanezumab Versus Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial.
    Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.), 2021, Volume: 73, Issue:7

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Blo

2021
Metronomic Chemotherapy vs Best Supportive Care in Progressive Pediatric Solid Malignant Tumors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    JAMA oncology, 2017, Sep-01, Volume: 3, Issue:9

    Topics: Administration, Metronomic; Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy P

2017
Study protocol: COmparison of the effect of treatment with Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs added to anti-tumour necrosis factor a therapy versus anti-tumour necrosis factor a therapy alone on progression of StrUctural damage in the spine over two yea
    BMJ open, 2017, 06-10, Volume: 7, Issue:6

    Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Celecoxib; Disease Progressi

2017
BOXIT-A Randomised Phase III Placebo-controlled Trial Evaluating the Addition of Celecoxib to Standard Treatment of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder (CRUK/07/004).
    European urology, 2019, Volume: 75, Issue:4

    Topics: Administration, Intravesical; Aged; Antibiotics, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherap

2019
Effects of celecoxib on hematoma and edema volumes in primary intracerebral hemorrhage: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.
    European journal of neurology, 2013, Volume: 20, Issue:8

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Brain Edema; Celecoxib; Cerebral Hemorrhage; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; D

2013
Chemoprevention of head and neck cancer with celecoxib and erlotinib: results of a phase ib and pharmacokinetic study.
    Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2014, Volume: 7, Issue:3

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Squamous

2014
Metastatic breast cancer patients treated with low-dose metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide and celecoxib: clinical outcomes and biomarkers of response.
    Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2016, Volume: 77, Issue:2

    Topics: Administration, Metronomic; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy

2016
Phase II study of celecoxib and docetaxel in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with progression after platinum-based therapy.
    Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, 2008, Volume: 3, Issue:12

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Celecox

2008
Phase II study of celecoxib with cisplatin plus etoposide in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer.
    Cancer investigation, 2009, Volume: 27, Issue:4

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Celecoxib; Cisplatin; Cyclooxygenase 2

2009
Anti-Helicobacter pylori therapy followed by celecoxib on progression of gastric precancerous lesions.
    World journal of gastroenterology, 2009, Jun-14, Volume: 15, Issue:22

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Apoptosis; Celecoxib; Cell Proliferation; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors

2009
An exploratory trial of cyclooxygenase type 2 inhibitor in HIV-1 infection: downregulated immune activation and improved T cell-dependent vaccine responses.
    Journal of virology, 2011, Volume: 85, Issue:13

    Topics: Adult; AIDS Vaccines; Celecoxib; Chronic Disease; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disease Progression;

2011
Effect of celecoxib on survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a double blind randomised clinical phase III trial (CYCLUS study) by the Swedish Lung Cancer Study Group.
    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 2011, Volume: 47, Issue:10

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cycloox

2011
A 12-month, multicenter, prospective, open-label trial of radiographic analysis of disease progression in osteoarthritis of the knee or hip in patients receiving celecoxib.
    Clinical therapeutics, 2002, Volume: 24, Issue:12

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Disease Progress

2002
Pilot study of celecoxib and infusional 5-fluorouracil as second-line treatment for advanced pancreatic carcinoma.
    Cancer, 2004, Jul-01, Volume: 101, Issue:1

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoembryonic Antige

2004
Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs reduce radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: a randomized clinical trial.
    Arthritis and rheumatism, 2005, Volume: 52, Issue:6

    Topics: Adult; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Disease Progre

2005
Maximal COX-2 immunostaining and clinical response to celecoxib and interferon alpha therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
    Cancer, 2006, Feb-01, Volume: 106, Issue:3

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carc

2006
Phase II trial of celecoxib in prostate-specific antigen recurrent prostate cancer after definitive radiation therapy or radical prostatectomy.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Apr-01, Volume: 12, Issue:7 Pt 1

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Agents; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disease Prog

2006
A phase I trial to determine the optimal biological dose of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Jun-01, Volume: 12, Issue:11 Pt 1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small

2006
A phase I trial to determine the optimal biological dose of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Jun-01, Volume: 12, Issue:11 Pt 1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small

2006
A phase I trial to determine the optimal biological dose of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Jun-01, Volume: 12, Issue:11 Pt 1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small

2006
A phase I trial to determine the optimal biological dose of celecoxib when combined with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Jun-01, Volume: 12, Issue:11 Pt 1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small

2006
Retrospective study of capecitabine and celecoxib in metastatic colorectal cancer: potential benefits and COX-2 as the common mediator in pain, toxicities and survival?
    American journal of clinical oncology, 2006, Volume: 29, Issue:3

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Combi

2006
Gene expression differences in normal esophageal mucosa associated with regression and progression of mild and moderate squamous dysplasia in a high-risk Chinese population.
    Cancer research, 2006, Jul-01, Volume: 66, Issue:13

    Topics: Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Celecoxib; China; Disease Progression; Double-Blind Method; Esophageal Neo

2006
High-Dose celecoxib and metronomic "low-dose" cyclophosphamide is an effective and safe therapy in patients with relapsed and refractory aggressive histology non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2006, Sep-01, Volume: 12, Issue:17

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Celecoxib; Cyclophosphamide; Disease Progressi

2006
A phase I/II trial of celecoxib with chemotherapy and radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer.
    Investigational new drugs, 2007, Volume: 25, Issue:2

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Agents; Celecoxib; Cisplatin; Combined Modality Therapy;

2007
Phase-II study of dose attenuated schedule of irinotecan, capecitabine, and celecoxib in advanced colorectal cancer.
    Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology, 2008, Volume: 61, Issue:2

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Adult; Aged; Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic

2008
Weekly administration of docetaxel in combination with estramustine and celecoxib in patients with advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer: final results from a phase II study.
    British journal of cancer, 2007, Nov-05, Volume: 97, Issue:9

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bone Neoplasms; Celecoxib; Dis

2007
Treatment of advanced hormone-sensitive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with exemestane alone or in combination with celecoxib.
    Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2008, Mar-10, Volume: 26, Issue:8

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Androstadienes; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Area

2008

Other Studies

57 other studies available for celecoxib and Disease Exacerbation

ArticleYear
Vitronectin-derived bioactive peptide prevents spondyloarthritis by modulating Th17/Treg imbalance in mice with curdlan-induced spondyloarthritis.
    PloS one, 2022, Volume: 17, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; beta-Glucans; Celecoxib; Cytokines; Disease Models, Animal; Disease Progression; Female; Ge

2022
Cyclooxygenase inhibitors impair CD4 T cell immunity and exacerbate
    Communications biology, 2019, Volume: 2

    Topics: Adoptive Transfer; Aerosols; Animals; Bacterial Load; Celecoxib; Cell Differentiation; Cyclooxygenas

2019
Celecoxib cannot inhibit the progression of initiated traumatic heterotopic ossification.
    Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery, 2019, Volume: 28, Issue:12

    Topics: Achilles Tendon; Adult; Aged; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Disease M

2019
Liposome encapsulation of doxorubicin and celecoxib in combination inhibits progression of human skin cancer cells.
    International journal of nanomedicine, 2018, Volume: 13, Issue:T-NANO 201

    Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bromodeoxyuridine; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell

2018
Intradiscal delivery of celecoxib-loaded microspheres restores intervertebral disc integrity in a preclinical canine model.
    Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society, 2018, 09-28, Volume: 286

    Topics: Animals; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Delayed-Action Preparations; Disease Models, Animal

2018
Association of anti-inflammatory and antiangiogenic therapies negatively influences prostate cancer progression in TRAMP mice.
    The Prostate, 2019, Volume: 79, Issue:5

    Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Celecoxib; Disease Progre

2019
Celecoxib With Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer Might Worsen Outcomes Differentially by COX-2 Expression and ER Status: Exploratory Analysis of the REMAGUS02 Trial.
    Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2019, 03-10, Volume: 37, Issue:8

    Topics: Adult; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Biomarkers, Tumor; Breast Neoplasms; Celecoxi

2019
Proinflammatory conditions promote hepatocellular carcinoma onset and progression via activation of Wnt and EGFR signaling pathways.
    Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 2013, Volume: 381, Issue:1-2

    Topics: Animals; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor; Cell Proliferation; Disease Progres

2013
Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor suppresses tumour progression of prostate cancer bone metastases in nude mice.
    BJU international, 2014, Volume: 113, Issue:5b

    Topics: Animals; Bone Neoplasms; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Disease Progressi

2014
Inhibition of IL-6 expression in LNCaP prostate cancer cells by a combination of atorvastatin and celecoxib.
    Oncology reports, 2014, Volume: 31, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Apoptosis; Atorvastatin; Castration; Celeco

2014
Evening primrose oil and celecoxib inhibited pathological angiogenesis, inflammation, and oxidative stress in adjuvant-induced arthritis: novel role of angiopoietin-1.
    Inflammopharmacology, 2014, Volume: 22, Issue:5

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Angiopoietin-1; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antioxidants; Arthritis, Ex

2014
Celecoxib suppresses hepatoma stemness and progression by up-regulating PTEN.
    Oncotarget, 2014, Mar-30, Volume: 5, Issue:6

    Topics: Animals; Apoptosis; Blotting, Western; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Celecoxib; Cell Proliferation; Cyc

2014
Development and reliability of a multi-modality scoring system for evaluation of disease progression in pre-clinical models of osteoarthritis: celecoxib may possess disease-modifying properties.
    Osteoarthritis and cartilage, 2014, Volume: 22, Issue:10

    Topics: Animals; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Bone Cysts; Bone Marrow Diseases; Cartilage, Articular; Celecox

2014
Simultaneous inhibition of EGFR/VEGFR and cyclooxygenase-2 targets stemness-related pathways in colorectal cancer cells.
    PloS one, 2015, Volume: 10, Issue:6

    Topics: Apoptosis; Caco-2 Cells; Celecoxib; Cell Cycle; Cell Proliferation; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxyge

2015
Dual Anti-angiogenic Chemotherapy with Temozolomide and Celecoxib in Selected Patients with Malignant Glioma Not Eligible for Standard Treatment.
    Anticancer research, 2015, Volume: 35, Issue:9

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Che

2015
Risk of Acute Kidney Injury After Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty and Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Multimodal Approach to Perioperative Pain Control Including Ketorolac and Celecoxib.
    The Journal of arthroplasty, 2016, Volume: 31, Issue:1

    Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthro

2016
COX-2 modulates mammary tumor progression in response to collagen density.
    Breast cancer research : BCR, 2016, Mar-22, Volume: 18, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; Breast Neoplasms; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor; Collagen Type I; Collagen Type I, alpha 1 Ch

2016
Polyamine Antagonist Therapies Inhibit Neuroblastoma Initiation and Progression.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2016, Sep-01, Volume: 22, Issue:17

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Celecoxib; Cell Line

2016
Efficacy of metronomic oral cyclophosphamide with low dose dexamethasone and celecoxib in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
    Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology, 2017, Volume: 13, Issue:3

    Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Celecoxib; Cyclophosphamide

2017
COX-2-dependent and independent effects of COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs on proatherogenic changes in human monocytes/macrophages.
    Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 2017, Volume: 65, Issue:3

    Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Atherosclerosis; Biological Transport; Celecoxib; Cell Adhe

2017
Celecoxib but not the combination of celecoxib+atorvastatin prevents the development of monocrotaline-induced pulmonary hypertension in the rat.
    Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2008, Volume: 378, Issue:3

    Topics: Acetylcholine; Animals; Atorvastatin; Blotting, Western; Body Weight; Caspase 3; Celecoxib; Cyclooxy

2008
Progressive metaplastic and dysplastic changes in mouse pancreas induced by cyclooxygenase-2 overexpression.
    Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.), 2008, Volume: 10, Issue:8

    Topics: Animals; Biomarkers, Tumor; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Celecoxib; Cell Transformation, Neoplastic

2008
Suppression of tumor formation by a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor and a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonist in an in vivo mouse model of spontaneous breast cancer.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2008, Aug-01, Volume: 14, Issue:15

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor

2008
Patient preferences for the chemoprevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus.
    The American journal of gastroenterology, 2008, Volume: 103, Issue:10

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Aspirin; Barrett Esophagus; Cardiovascular Diseases; Celecoxib; Chemoprevention; Cyc

2008
Metastatic hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma in a teenage girl.
    Journal of pediatric hematology/oncology, 2008, Volume: 30, Issue:7

    Topics: Adolescent; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carboplatin; Ce

2008
Celecoxib inhibits apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease-1 expression and prevents gastric cancer in Helicobacter pylori-infected mongolian gerbils.
    Digestion, 2008, Volume: 78, Issue:2-3

    Topics: Animals; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Disease Progression; DNA-(Apurinic or Apyrimidinic Si

2008
Progression of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is significantly impeded with a combination of vaccine and COX-2 inhibition.
    Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950), 2009, Jan-01, Volume: 182, Issue:1

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Antibodies; Cancer Vaccines; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Celecoxib; Cyclo

2009
First experiences with low-dose anti-angiogenic treatment in gliomatosis cerebri with signs of angiogenic activity.
    Anticancer research, 2009, Volume: 29, Issue:8

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Celecoxib; Cell Proliferation; Cyclooxy

2009
Atorvastatin and celecoxib in combination inhibits the progression of androgen-dependent LNCaP xenograft prostate tumors to androgen independence.
    Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2010, Volume: 3, Issue:1

    Topics: Androgens; Animals; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Antine

2010
Celecoxib inhibits CD133-positive cell migration via reduction of CCR2 in Helicobacter pylori-infected Mongolian gerbils.
    Digestion, 2010, Volume: 81, Issue:3

    Topics: AC133 Antigen; Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Antigens, CD; Blotting, Western; Celecoxib; Cell Count; Cell

2010
Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition for the prophylaxis and treatment of preinvasive breast cancer in a her-2/neu mouse model.
    Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2010, Volume: 3, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Apoptosis; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma in Situ; Carcinoma, Ductal, B

2010
An open-label pilot study evaluating by magnetic resonance imaging the potential for a disease-modifying effect of celecoxib compared to a modelized historical control cohort in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.
    Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism, 2010, Volume: 40, Issue:3

    Topics: Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cartilage, Articular; Celecoxib; Cohort Studies; Cycl

2010
Optical tomographic imaging discriminates between disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) and non-DMARD efficacy in collagen antibody-induced arthritis.
    Arthritis research & therapy, 2010, Volume: 12, Issue:3

    Topics: Animals; Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Experimental; Cathepsins; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase Inhibi

2010
Celecoxib combined with atorvastatin prevents progression of atherosclerosis.
    The Journal of surgical research, 2010, Volume: 163, Issue:2

    Topics: Animals; Apolipoproteins E; Atherosclerosis; Atorvastatin; Celecoxib; Chemokine CCL2; Cyclooxygenase

2010
Antiangiogenic combination therapy after local radiotherapy with topotecan radiosensitizer improved quality of life for children with inoperable brainstem gliomas.
    Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2011, Volume: 100, Issue:1

    Topics: Adolescent; Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Brain Stem Neop

2011
Gender-based effect of statins on functional decline in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
    Journal of the neurological sciences, 2011, Jan-15, Volume: 300, Issue:1-2

    Topics: Aged; Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis; Celecoxib; Disease Progression; Dyslipidemias; Female; Fructose

2011
Chemoprevention, risk reduction, therapeutic prevention, or preventive therapy?
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2010, Dec-15, Volume: 102, Issue:24

    Topics: Adenoma; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Breast Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell;

2010
Chemoprevention: First line of defence.
    Nature, 2011, Mar-24, Volume: 471, Issue:7339

    Topics: Animals; Aspirin; Celecoxib; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Colonic Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase I

2011
Cell intrinsic role of COX-2 in pancreatic cancer development.
    Molecular cancer therapeutics, 2012, Volume: 11, Issue:10

    Topics: Animals; Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal; Celecoxib; Cell Membrane; Cyclooxygenase 2; Disease Models, A

2012
Effectiveness of cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition in limiting abdominal aortic aneurysm progression in mice correlates with a differentiated smooth muscle cell phenotype.
    Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology, 2012, Volume: 60, Issue:6

    Topics: Angiotensin II; Animals; Aorta, Abdominal; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Aortic Rupture; Biomarkers; C

2012
The tumor suppressor microRNA-29c is downregulated and restored by celecoxib in human gastric cancer cells.
    International journal of cancer, 2013, Apr-15, Volume: 132, Issue:8

    Topics: Base Sequence; Blotting, Western; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor; Chromatin Immunoprecipitation; Cycloo

2013
COX-2 expression and survival in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy and celecoxib: a quantitative immunohistochemical analysis of RTOG C0128.
    International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society, 2013, Volume: 23, Issue:1

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Celecoxib; Chemoradiotherapy; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Clinica

2013
Effect of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition on the development of ligature-induced periodontitis in rats.
    Journal of periodontology, 2002, Volume: 73, Issue:9

    Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Analysis of Variance; Animals; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inh

2002
Celecoxib and difluoromethylornithine in combination have strong therapeutic activity against UV-induced skin tumors in mice.
    Carcinogenesis, 2003, Volume: 24, Issue:5

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Apoptosis; Celecoxib; Cell Division; Cyclooxygenase 2; Disease Progr

2003
Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition decreases primary and metastatic tumor burden in a murine model of orthotopic lung adenocarcinoma.
    The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2003, Volume: 126, Issue:4

    Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Animals; Celecoxib; Cell Line, Tumor; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors;

2003
Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibition limits abnormal COX-2 expression and progressive injury in the remnant kidney.
    Kidney international, 2003, Volume: 64, Issue:6

    Topics: Animals; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Diseas

2003
Environmental, pharmacological, and genetic modulation of the HD phenotype in transgenic mice.
    Experimental neurology, 2004, Volume: 187, Issue:1

    Topics: Acetamides; Animals; Celecoxib; Chlorpromazine; Coenzymes; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Disease Models

2004
Prospects for disease modification in ankylosing spondylitis: do nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs do more than treat symptoms?
    Arthritis and rheumatism, 2005, Volume: 52, Issue:6

    Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antirheumatic Agents; Celecoxib; Clinical Trials as Topic;

2005
Cross-talk between cyclooxygenase-2 and epidermal growth factor receptor in non-small cell lung cancer.
    Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2005, Volume: 49, Issue:3

    Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lun

2005
Tumor growth inhibition by simultaneously blocking epidermal growth factor receptor and cyclooxygenase-2 in a xenograft model.
    Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2005, Sep-01, Volume: 11, Issue:17

    Topics: Animals; Antineoplastic Agents; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenas

2005
Chemopreventive effect of celecoxib in oral precancers and cancers.
    The Laryngoscope, 2006, Volume: 116, Issue:10

    Topics: 9,10-Dimethyl-1,2-benzanthracene; Administration, Oral; Animals; Carcinogens; Celecoxib; Chemopreven

2006
Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition and regression of metastatic melanoma.
    Melanoma research, 2006, Volume: 16, Issue:5

    Topics: Apoptosis; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors; Disease Progression; Female; Gene

2006
The select cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib reduced the extent of atherosclerosis in apo E-/- mice.
    The Journal of surgical research, 2008, May-01, Volume: 146, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; Aorta; Apolipoproteins E; Atherosclerosis; Celecoxib; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 In

2008
Cancer and arthritis share underlying processes.
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1998, Jun-03, Volume: 90, Issue:11

    Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Arthritis; Celecoxib; Cell Transfo

1998
Chemoprevention of colon cancer by specific cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, administered during different stages of carcinogenesis.
    Cancer research, 2000, Jan-15, Volume: 60, Issue:2

    Topics: Administration, Oral; Animals; Anticarcinogenic Agents; Azoxymethane; Celecoxib; Colonic Neoplasms;

2000
Prevention of colorectal cancer: tumor progression, chemoprevention, and COX-2 inhibition.
    Gastroenterology, 2000, Volume: 119, Issue:1

    Topics: Animals; Celecoxib; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhibitors; Cyclooxygen

2000
Safety of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in inflammatory bowel disease.
    The American journal of gastroenterology, 2002, Volume: 97, Issue:4

    Topics: Adult; Aged; Celecoxib; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Cyclooxygenase 2; Cyclooxygenase 2 Inhib

2002