Editorial: Pain Relief in Osteoarthritis: The Potential for a Perfect Storm

Innovation in Targeted Intra-articular Therapies for Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic joint disease characterized by progressive damage to the joints, leading to pain and loss of function. There is currently no cure or disease-modifying therapy for osteoarthritis. Hence, the increasing disease prevalence linked with ageing and obesity represents a substantial socio-economic burden. Intra-articular therapy by injection of drugs into affected joints can optimize local drug bioavailability, while reducing risks of systemic toxicity, a concern in an ageing patient population. In this review, we investigate the current landscape of intra-articular drug therapies for osteoarthritis, including established approaches and those in clinical development. We performed a literature review using PubMed, complemented with a search for clinical trials using the ClinicalTrials.gov repository. Additionally, conference abstracts and presentations were identified and systematic snowballing was applied. Identified drugs were divided into several groups by main mechanism of action, and include drugs that reduce inflammation (anti-inflammatory), drugs aiming to prevent or reverse structural damage (structure modifying), drugs that aim to reduce the pain, and other drugs with a specific target. Most studies have been performed for osteoarthritis of the knee, a joint that is easily accessible for intra-articular treatments. Optimal therapy would provide symptomatic relief, while preventing further damage to the joint. The field of intra-articular drug therapies for osteoarthritis is rapidly evolving with clear challenges identified: definition of relevant outcome measures, optimization of clinical trial set-ups, and dealing with placebo responses. While many uncertainties persist, it appears that the innovation in drug development and improved clinical trial set-up may finally deliver successful therapies for this important disease.

Based on minimal clinically important difference values, a moderate dose of tanezumab may be a better option for treating hip or knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background:

Tanezumab is a nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody that may regulate pain in hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low and moderate doses of tanezumab in treating hip or knee OA.

Methods:

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for clinical trials published before 1 May 2021. Patients were assessed via efficacy and safety outcomes.

Results:

Twelve randomized controlled trials including 6022 patients were identified. Both low and moderate doses of tanezumab significantly improved efficacy outcomes. However, only the point estimates (mean difference, MD) of moderate-dose tanezumab significantly exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). There were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to AEs, serious AEs, and total joint replacement between the tanezumab and placebo groups, whereas the incidence of AEs was higher in the tanezumab group (relative risk, RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI = 1.04–1.17). The incidence of rapidly progressive OA was significantly higher in the combined low- and moderate-dose tanezumab groups than in the placebo group (RR = 5.01; 95% CI = 1.17–21.33). Furthermore, both low and moderate doses of tanezumab significantly increased the incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.21–3.28; RR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.91–3.67, respectively). Compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, tanezumab showed significantly improved efficacy outcomes (p < 0.05). However, the point estimates (MD) of tanezumab were not greater than the MCID. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences between tanezumab and NSAIDs and opioids in safety outcomes (p > 0.05).

Conclusion:

Tanezumab is efficacious in patients with hip or knee OA. Tanezumab is relatively well tolerated and safe but increases the incidence of AEs and reversible abnormal peripheral sensation. Additional studies on the occurrence of rapidly progressive OA are needed. A moderate dose of tanezumab may maximize the benefits for hip or knee OA.

Nerve growth factor antibody for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain and chronic low-back pain: mechanism of action in the context of efficacy and safety

Chronic pain continues to be a significant global burden despite the availability of a variety of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, there is a need for new analgesics with novel mechanisms of action. In this regard, antibodies directed against nerve growth factor (NGF-Abs) are a new class of agents in development for the treatment of chronic pain conditions such as osteoarthritis and chronic low-back pain. This comprehensive narrative review summarizes evidence supporting pronociceptive functions for NGF that include contributing to peripheral and central sensitization through tropomyosin receptor kinase A activation and stimulation of local neuronal sprouting. The potential role of NGF in osteoarthritis and chronic low-back pain signaling is also examined to provide a mechanistic basis for the observed efficacy of NGF-Abs in clinical trials of these particular pain states. Finally, the safety profile of NGF-Abs in terms of common adverse events, joint safety, and nerve structure/function is discussed.

Efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of tropomyosin receptor kinase A inhibitor in painful knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of GZ389988A, a tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA) inhibitor, in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

In this single center, double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized trial, 104 subjects with moderate-to-severe knee OA pain were enrolled to receive a single intra-articular (IA) injection of either GZ389988A or placebo. Efficacy measures were assessed over 12 weeks and included walking pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] A1), overall knee pain, WOMAC A, B, C and total score, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), OMERACT-OARSI responder rate and rescue medication use. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored up to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met with a between-group difference of -7.49 (VAS 0-100) on WOMAC A1 changes over 4 weeks (P < 0.05 favoring GZ389988A). The secondary outcome on WOMAC A1 changes over 12 weeks had a between-group difference of -6.78 (P = 0.064). Among weekly assessments, statistically significant greater improvement in the GZ389988A group was observed in WOMAC A1, overall knee pain and/or WOMAC A at weeks 2-5. Although not statistically significant, improvements over placebo on pain and WOMAC C persisted over 12 weeks. Greater AE incidence was observed in the GZ389988A group including transient and self-limited injection joint inflammatory reactions with a spike of acetaminophen intake within the first week post-injection.

CONCLUSION

IA injection of TrkA inhibitor GZ389988A in knee OA subjects reduced pain with a numerically functional gain and an acceptable safety profile. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845271).

Nerve Growth Factor Antagonists: Is the Future of Monoclonal Antibodies Becoming Clearer?

Although there is an unmet need for pain medications that are both effective and safe, virtually no novel analgesics have been approved over the past two decades. In view of both experimental and clinical evidence of a major role for nerve growth factor (NGF) in the generation and maintenance of a wide range of pain states, the clinical development of humanised anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibodies (anti-NGF mAbs) aroused particular interest. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a clinical hold on anti-NGF mAb clinical studies in late 2010, first because of reports of serious joint-related adverse events, and afterwards because of sympathetic nervous system safety concerns. The development programmes of tanezumab and fasinumab resumed after the FDA lifted its hold in March 2015, whereas other anti-NGF mAbs were dropped by their sponsors. This article provides an updated review on the analgesic efficacy and safety of anti-NGF agents based on data from fully published studies and public information from websites, and discusses the possible future role of these agents in managing chronic pain. The efficacy of anti-NGF mAbs was highly variable depending on the chronic pain condition studied. The most consistent and convincing results were obtained in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip. Conversely, studies in non-specific lower back pain and peripheral neuropathic pain generated mixed results. Finally, there was no conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of anti-NGF mAbs in cancer pain and urological chronic pelvic pain syndromes. Treatment-emergent adverse events were similar across anti-NGF mAbs, thus being suggestive of 'class-specific effects'. Although most patients tolerated anti-NGF agents well, neurosensory symptoms occurred frequently, and some patients developed new or worsened peripheral neuropathies. However, the most problematic safety issue was rapidly destructive arthropathies, leading to joint replacement surgery. To date, the aetiologies of joint-related side effects and their pathophysiology have not been clearly elucidated. However, some risk factors have been identified, such as higher doses of anti-NGF mAbs and longer drug exposure, concurrent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and pre-existing subchondral insufficiency fractures. Taken together, the present data suggest that low-dose anti-NGF mABs may exhibit a favourable risk-benefit ratio in selected patients with certain chronic pain conditions, especially symptomatic osteoarthritis.