Neoplasm MetastasisPhase 2NCT00545129
A Study Of Tanezumab as Add-On Therapy to Opioid Medication In Patients With Pain Due To Cancer That Has Spread To Bone
A Phase 2 study testing Tanezumab 10 mg IV in people with Neoplasm Metastasis and Palliative Care, run by Pfizer at 39 sites in 13 countries.
Trial summary
The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of tanezumab in combination with opioids in treating pain due to cancer that has spread to bone. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Neoplasm Metastasis, Palliative Care
- What is being tested?
- Tanezumab 10 mg IV
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 59 participants
- Where
- 39 sitesin 13 countries
- Study dates
- 29 Apr 2009to 7 Feb 2012
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Prostate cancer, breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma or multiple myeloma that has spread to bone, causing moderate to severe bone pain.
- Requires daily opioid medication
Who cannot join
- Patients who do not have bone pain caused by cancer are not eligible for the study.
- Patients who started chemotherapy less than 4 weeks ago, or who completed radiotherapy less than 4 weeks ago, are not eligible.
- Known history or evidence of osteoarthritis. History of significant trauma to a major joint within 1 year prior to Screening.
- Known history of rheumatoid arthritis.
Trial locations and contacts
39 sites in 13 countries.
39 sites in 13 countries
United States12 sites
Hollings Cancer Center
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
Medical University of South Carolina, Department of Urology
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
MUSC Department of Radiology
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
MUSC Investigational Pharmacy
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
MUSC Urology Ambulatory Care
Charleston, South Carolina, 29425
UCSD Center for Pain Medicine
La Jolla, California, 92037-7651
UCSD Medical Center - Thornton Hospital
La Jolla, California, 92037-7651
UCSD Moores Cancer Center
La Jolla, California, 92093
Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112
WK River Cities Clinical Research Center
Shreveport, Louisiana, 71105
Willis Knighton Pierremont Health Center
Shreveport, Louisiana, 71115
Indiana Pain and Spine Clinic
South Bend, Indiana, 46617
India5 sites
Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226003
Shri Siddhivinayak Ganpati Cancer Hospital
Miraj, Maharashtra, 416 410
Central India Cancer Research Institute
Nagpur, Maharashtra, 440 010
Shatabdi Superspeciality Hospital
Nashik, Maharashtra, 422 005
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre,
New Delhi, 110085
Poland4 sites
Niepubliczny Zaklad Opieki Zdrowotnej
Bydgoszcz, 85-796
Hospicjum im. Ks. Eugeniusza Dutkiewicza SAC w Gdansku
Gdansk, 80-208
Poradnia Medycyny Paliatywnej, Hospicjum Palium
Poznan, 61-245
NZOZ Zespol Opieki Domowej
Włocławek, 87-800
Austria3 sites
Landeskrankenhaus Graz - Universitaetsklinik fuer Orthopaedie und Orthopaedische Chirurgie
Graz, A-8036
Krankenhaus der Elisabethinen Linz, Institut fuer Anaesthesiologie und Intensivmedizin
Linz, A-4010
Nuhr Zentrum
Senftenberg, A-3541
Hungary3 sites
Fovarosi Onkormanyzat Peterfy Sandor Utcai Korhaz - Fajdalom Ambulancia
Budapest, 1076
Fovarosi Onkormanyzat Jahn Ferenc Del-pesti Korhaz - Fajdalom Ambulancia
Budapest, 1204
Fejer Megyei Szt. Gyorgy Korhaz - Rendelointezet/Aneszteziologiai es Intenziv Betegellato Osztaly
Székesfehérvár, 8003
Bosnia and Herzegovina2 sites
Clinic of Oncology
Banja Luka, 78000
Institute of Oncology, University Clinical Center Sarajevo
Sarajevo, 71000
Peru2 sites
Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen
Lima, LIMA L13
Oncocare
Lima, 05127
Slovakia2 sites
Fakultna Nemocnica s Poliklinikou F.D.Roosevelta
Banská Bystrica, 97517
Narodny onkologicky ustav
Bratislava, 83310
South Korea2 sites
Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center
Seoul, 120-752
Samsung Medical Center, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine
Seoul, 135-710
Latvia1 site
10th Department, Latvian Oncological Centre / Riga Eastern Clinical University Hospital
Riga, LV 1079
Mexico1 site
Centro de Cancer del Centro Medico ABC
Mexico City, Mexico City, 01120
About this study
Official title: PHASE II RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED MULTICENTER EFFICACY AND SAFETY STUDY OF TANEZUMAB AS ADD-ON THERAPY TO OPIOID MEDICATION IN PATIENTS WITH PAIN DUE TO BONE METASTASES
The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of tanezumab in combination with opioids in treating pain due to cancer that has spread to bone.
- Conditions
- Neoplasm Metastasis, Palliative Care
- Being tested
- Tanezumab 10 mg IV, IV Placebo for tanezumab
- Medical subject headings
- Neoplasm Metastasis
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Tanezumab 10 mg IVDrug
Single IV infusion of 10 mg tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen.
IV Placebo for tanezumabDrug
Single IV infusion of placebo for tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Tanezumab 10 mg IV + opioids | Experimental | Not described Receives: Drug: Tanezumab 10 mg IV |
| Placebo + opioids | Placebo comparator | Single IV infusion of placebo for tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen. Receives: Drug: IV Placebo for tanezumab |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change From Baseline in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 6
Daily average pain was assessed on an 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours (before each specified visit), where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower the score, lesser the pain intensity.
Measured: Baseline, Week 6
Secondary outcomes (31)
Change From Baseline in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16
Daily average pain was assessed on an 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours (before each specified visit), where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower the score, lesser pain intensity.
Measured: Baseline, Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Daily Worst Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
The worst pain was assessed an 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower the score, lesser pain intensity.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Daily Worst Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
The worst pain was assessed on 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". The lower the value the lesser pain intensity.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Average Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: BOCF
BPI-sf: self-administered questionnaire developed to assess severity, impact of pain on daily functions, consisted of 5 questions. Questions 1-4 measured magnitude of pain at its worst, least, average, right now. BPI-sf average pain measured the severity of pain based on the average pain experienced over the past 24-hours and ranged from 0 (No Pain) to10 (Pain as bad as you can imagine), lower scores indicates lesser pain intensity. Question 5: 7 item subsets that measured level of interference of pain on daily functions on 11-point NRS at 0 (Does not interfere) to 10 (Completely interferes).
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Average Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: LOCF
BPI-sf: self-administered questionnaire developed to assess severity, impact of pain on daily functions, consisted of 5 questions. Questions 1-4 measured magnitude of pain at its worst, least, average, right now. BPI-sf average pain measured the severity of pain based on the average pain experienced over the past 24-hours and ranged from 0 (No Pain) to 10 (Pain as bad as you can imagine), lower score indicates lesser pain intensity. Question 5: 7 item subsets that measured level of interference of pain on daily functions on 11-point numeric rating scale at 0 (Does not interfere) to 10 (Completely interferes).
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Worst Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: BOCF
BPI-sf: self-administered questionnaire developed to assess severity, impact of pain on daily functions, consisted of 5 questions. Questions 1-4 measured magnitude of pain at its worst, least, average, right now. BPI-sf worst pain measured the severity of pain based on the worst pain experienced over the past 24-hours and ranged from 0 (No Pain) to 10 (Pain as bad as you can imagine), lower scores =lesser pain intensity. Question 5: 7 item subsets that measured level of interference of pain on daily functions on 11-point numeric rating scale at 0 (Does not interfere) to 10 (Completely interferes).
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Worst Pain Scores Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: LOCF
BPI-sf: self-administered questionnaire developed to assess severity, impact of pain on daily functions, consisted of 5 questions. Questions 1-4 measured magnitude of pain at its worst, least, average, right now. BPI-sf worst pain measured the severity of pain based on the worst pain experienced over the past 24-hours and ranged from 0 (No Pain) to 10 (Pain as bad as you can imagine), lower scores=lesser pain intensity. Question 5: 7 item subsets that measured level of interference of pain on daily functions on11-point numeric rating scale at 0 (Does not interfere) to 10 (Completely interferes).
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score: BOCF
Percentage of participant with response as defined by a >=30%, >=50%, >=70%, and >=90%, reduction in the daily average pain intensity NRS score from baseline, that was maintained for a minimum of 3 consecutive days following this original study day (reduction in pain was maintained for a minimum duration of 4 consecutive days). Daily average pain was assessed on 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower scores indicate less pain intensity.
Measured: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score: LOCF
Percentage of participant with response as defined by a >=30%, >=50%, >=70%, and >=90%, reduction in the daily average pain intensity NRS score from baseline, that was maintained for a minimum of 3 consecutive days following this original study day (reduction in pain was maintained for a minimum duration of 4 consecutive days). Daily average pain was assessed on 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower scores indicate less pain intensity
Measured: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Average Daily Opioid Consumption
The average daily opioid consumption was calculated as the daily sum of total opioid dosage in milligrams. Opioid consumption on each day was converted to the morphine equivalent dosage (MED). Results were summarized for opioid dose adjust period, baseline assessment period and post-baseline period.
Measured: Opioid Dose Adjust Period (Day-30 to Day-4), Baseline Assessment period (Day-3 to Day-1), Post Baseline Period (Day 1 to Week 16)
Number of Doses of Rescue Medication Required Per Week
Participants received immediate release (IR) opioid as rescue medication as needed for breakthrough pain from Day 1-113 at the dose determined during the pre-treatment phase, provided the average total daily dose of opioids between study visits does not exceed the baseline total daily opioid dose by more than 10%.
Measured: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Change From Baseline in Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, and 16
OR-SDS: participant-rated levels of frequency (F), severity (S), degree of bother (DoB) for 10 symptoms: fatigue, drowsiness, concentration, confusion, nausea, dizziness, constipation, itching, difficulty with urination, retching/vomiting. For each symptom levels of F, S and DoB scored as: frequency (0 to 4:'did not have' to 'almost constantly'), severity (0 to 4:'did not have' to 'very severe'), degree of bother (0 to 5:'did not have' to 'very much'). Mean of F, S and DoB was calculated for each symptom to derive composite scores/multi-domain average (MDA) scores which ranges from 0 to 4.33. Higher MDA=worse symptom. Composite scores for frequency (FCS), severity (SCS), degree of bother, and MDA were calculated as mean of these scores across 10 symptoms and had same ranges as individual scores frequency (0 to 4:'did not have' to 'almost constantly'), severity (0 to 4:'did not have' to 'very severe'), degree of bother (0 to 5:'did not have' to 'very much'); higher scores=more distress
Measured: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference With Function Composite Score and Individual Pain Interference Item Scores of General Activity, Walking Ability and Normal Work at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: BOCF
Participant-rated 11 point Likert rating scale ranging from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) assessed interference of pain in functional activities (general activity, walking ability, and normal work) in past 24 hours. Measures were scored by individual item as well as function composite score (calculated by taking mean of individual interference scores), both (individual scores and composite scores) ranging from 0 to 10 with lower scores being indicative of less pain interference.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference With Function Composite Score and Individual Pain Interference Item Scores at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
Participant-rated 11 point Likert rating scale ranging from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes) assessed interference of pain in functional activities (general activity, walking ability, and normal work) in past 24 hours. Measures were scored by individual item as well as function composite score (calculated by taking mean of individual interference scores), both (individual items and composite scores) ranging from 0 to 10 with lower scores being indicative of less pain interference.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication
The Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication (PGESM) was a single item that assessed the participant's perception of his/her response to the study medication. It was a self-administered question that utilizes a 4-point Likert scale from 1="Poor" to 4="Excellent", where higher score represented better outcome.
Measured: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: BOCF
The Patient's Global Assessment of Cancer Pain was a global evaluation that utilized a 5-point Likert scale with a score of 1 being the best (Very Good) and a score of 5 being the worst (Very Poor), where higher score represented more pain.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
The Patient's Global Assessment of Cancer Pain was a global evaluation that utilized a 5-point Likert scale with a score of 1 being the best (Very Good) and a score of 5 being the worst (Very Poor), where higher score represented more pain.
Measured: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Improvement of >=2 Points in Patient's Global Assessment Of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity: BOCF
The Patient's Global Assessment of Cancer Pain was a global evaluation that utilized a 5-point Likert scale with a score of 1 being the best (Very Good) and a score of 5 being the worst (Very Poor), where higher score represented more pain.
Measured: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Improvement Of >=2 Points in Patient's Global Assessment Of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity: LOCF
The Patient's Global Assessment of Cancer Pain was a global evaluation that utilized a 5-point Likert scale with a score of 1 being the best (Very Good) and a score of 5 being the worst (Very Poor), where higher score represented more pain.
Measured: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or 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. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of 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 are events between first dose of study drug and up to 113 days that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state.
Measured: Baseline up to 113 days
Number of Participants With Physical Examination Abnormalities
Physical examinations included general appearance (skin, neck, eyes, ears, nose, throat), cardiovascular system (including rhythm and presence of other cardiac abnormalities, such as gallops, murmurs, and cardiomegaly), respiratory system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, musculoskeletal system, and any additional assessments necessary to establish baseline status or evaluate symptoms or adverse experiences. Abnormalities in physical examination was based on investigator's discretion.
Measured: Baseline up to Week 16 or Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Abnormal Neurological Examination
Neurological examinations assessed strength of groups of muscles of the head and neck, upper limbs and lower limbs, deep tendon reflexes and sensation (tactile, vibration, joint position sense and pin prick) of index finger and great toes in order to complete the neuropathy impairment score (NIS). 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) for muscle strength, higher score indicated higher abnormality/impairment, and 13 items scored from 0 (normal), 1 (decreased) and 2 (absent) for sensation, higher score indicated higher impairment. NIS possible overall score ranged from 0 (no impairment) to 244 (maximum impairment), higher scores indicated increased impairment.
Measured: Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Body Temperature
Measured: Baseline (Day 1 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Blood Pressure (BP)
Systolic BP: the measurement of the pressure when the heart is contracted (systole). The systolic pressure indicates the maximum amount of work/force the heart has to perform with each stroke in order to move blood through the arteries. Diastolic BP: the pressure in the large arteries during the relaxation of the left ventricle. The diastolic pressure indicates the amount of pressure the heart must overcome in order to generate the next beat.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Respiratory Rate
Respiration rate measured as number of breaths taken per minute.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1, 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Heart Rate
Heart rate is the number of heart beats per minute.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1, 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, and Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Body Weight of Participants
Measured: Baseline, Week 6, 16 and Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Abnormal Laboratory Examination
Criteria for laboratory tests abnormalities included: hemoglobin, hematocrit (<0.8*lower limit of normal [LLN]); red blood cell count (<0.8*LLN); platelets (<0.5*LLN or >1.75* upper limit of normal [ULN]); leucocytes (<0.6*LLN or >1.5*ULN); lymphocytes, total neutrophils (<0.8*LLN or >1.2*ULN); basophils, eosinophils, monocytes (>1.2*ULN); total bilirubin (>1.5* ULN); aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase (>3*ULN); creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (>1.3*ULN); glucose (<0.6*LLN or >1.5*ULN); uric acid (>1.2*ULN); sodium (<0.95*LLN or 1.05*ULN); potassium, calcium, chloride, bicarbonate (<0.9*LLN or 1.1*ULN); albumin, total protein (<0.8*LLN or 1.2*ULN); urine analysis. Total number of participants without regards to baseline abnormality was summarized.
Measured: Baseline up to Week 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies
Human serum samples were analyzed using electrochemiluminescent (ECL) immunoassay for the presence of anti-tanezumab antibodies. Same participant may have positive (titer value >=4.32) anti-tanezumab antibodies result at more than 1 time point.
Measured: Baseline (Day 1), Week 4, 6, 12, 16
Electrocardiogram Examination
ECG intervals included: RR (the time interval between consecutive heart beats), PR (time between the onset of atrial depolarization and the onset of ventricular depolarization), QRS (represented ventricular depolarization) and QT (time corresponding to the beginning of depolarization to repolarization of the ventricles), QTcF (QT interval corrected using Fridericia's formula [FF]), QTcB interval (QT interval corrected using Bazett's formula [BF]).
Measured: Baseline (Pre-dose and 1 hour Post-dose), Week 4, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Electrocardiogram Examination: Heart Rate
Standard 12-lead ECG performed after participant had rested quietly for at least 10 minutes in a supine position was measured. The time interval between consecutive heart beats [RR interval] (in beats per minute [bpm]) was used to calculate heart rate.
Measured: Baseline (Pre-dose and 1 hour Post-dose), Week 4, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Oct 2007 (estimated)
- Study start29 Apr 2009
- Primary completion24 Dec 2011
- Study completion7 Feb 2012
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Neoplasm MetastasisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by PfizerThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 59 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Pfizer
- Sponsor type
- Industry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Pfizer CT.gov Call Center, Study director, Pfizer
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00545129
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- A4091003
- Other IDs
- 2008-005181-31, CANCER PAIN POC, 2008
- Status last verified
- May 2021
- First submitted
- 15 Oct 2007
- Last updated
- 18 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical\_trials/trial\_data\_and\_results/data\_requests.
Publications
Sopata M, Katz N, Carey W, Smith MD, Keller D, Verburg KM, West CR, Wolfram G, Brown MT. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of pain from bone metastases. Pain. 2015 Sep;156(9):1703-1713. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000211.
PubMed 25919474Bapat AA, Hostetter G, Von Hoff DD, Han H. Perineural invasion and associated pain in pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011 Sep 23;11(10):695-707. doi: 10.1038/nrc3131.
PubMed 21941281
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- PHASE II RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED MULTICENTER EFFICACY AND SAFETY STUDY OF TANEZUMAB AS ADD-ON THERAPY TO OPIOID MEDICATION IN PATIENTS WITH PAIN DUE TO BONE METASTASES
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00545129
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- A4091003
- Conditions
- Neoplasm Metastasis, Palliative Care
- Phase
- Phase 2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 59 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- PfizerIndustry (pharma, biotech, devices)
- Study start
- 29 Apr 2009 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Dec 2011 (actual)
- Study completion
- 7 Feb 2012 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Oct 2007 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 18 Jun 2021
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of tanezumab in combination with opioids in treating pain due to cancer that has spread to bone.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Quadruple blind (participant, care provider, investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Tanezumab 10 mg IV + opioids | Experimental | Drug: Tanezumab 10 mg IV |
| Placebo + opioids | Placebo comparator | Drug: IV Placebo for tanezumabSingle IV infusion of placebo for tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Prostate cancer, breast cancer, renal cell carcinoma or multiple myeloma that has spread to bone, causing moderate to severe bone pain.
- Requires daily opioid medication
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients who do not have bone pain caused by cancer are not eligible for the study.
- Patients who started chemotherapy less than 4 weeks ago, or who completed radiotherapy less than 4 weeks ago, are not eligible.
- Known history or evidence of osteoarthritis. History of significant trauma to a major joint within 1 year prior to Screening.
- Known history of rheumatoid arthritis.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Tanezumab 10 mg IVSingle IV infusion of 10 mg tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen. | Drug | Tanezumab 10 mg IV + opioids |
| IV Placebo for tanezumabSingle IV infusion of placebo for tanezumab on Day 1. Maintained on baseline opioid regimen. | Drug | Placebo + opioids |
Primary outcome
Change From Baseline in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 6
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6
Daily average pain was assessed on an 11-point NRS over the past 24 hours (before each specified visit), where a score of 0 indicated "no pain" and a score of 10 indicated "pain as bad as you can imagine". Lower the score, lesser the pain intensity.
31 secondary outcomes
Change From Baseline in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16
Time frame: Baseline, Weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Daily Worst Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Daily Worst Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Average Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: BOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Average Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: LOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Worst Pain Scores at Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: BOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Worst Pain Scores Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 16: LOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score: BOCF
Time frame: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Greater Than or Equal to (>=) 30 Percent (%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% Reduction in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score: LOCF
Time frame: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Average Daily Opioid Consumption
Time frame: Opioid Dose Adjust Period (Day-30 to Day-4), Baseline Assessment period (Day-3 to Day-1), Post Baseline Period (Day 1 to Week 16)
Number of Doses of Rescue Medication Required Per Week
Time frame: Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Change From Baseline in Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) at Weeks 2, 4, 6, 12, and 16
Time frame: Baseline, Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference With Function Composite Score and Individual Pain Interference Item Scores of General Activity, Walking Ability and Normal Work at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: BOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Pain Interference With Function Composite Score and Individual Pain Interference Item Scores at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Patient's Global Evaluation of Study Medication
Time frame: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: BOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Change From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity at Weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 16: LOCF
Time frame: Baseline, Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Improvement of >=2 Points in Patient's Global Assessment Of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity: BOCF
Time frame: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Percentage of Participants Achieving Improvement Of >=2 Points in Patient's Global Assessment Of Disease (Cancer Pain) Activity: LOCF
Time frame: Week 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16
Number of Participants With Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events (AEs) or Serious Adverse Events (SAEs)
Time frame: Baseline up to 113 days
Number of Participants With Physical Examination Abnormalities
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 16 or Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Abnormal Neurological Examination
Time frame: Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Body Temperature
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Blood Pressure (BP)
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Respiratory Rate
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1, 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Vital Sign Examination: Heart Rate
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1, 0H), Week 2, 4, 6, 12, 16, and Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Body Weight of Participants
Time frame: Baseline, Week 6, 16 and Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Abnormal Laboratory Examination
Time frame: Baseline up to Week 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Number of Participants With Anti-drug Antibodies
Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 4, 6, 12, 16
Electrocardiogram Examination
Time frame: Baseline (Pre-dose and 1 hour Post-dose), Week 4, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Electrocardiogram Examination: Heart Rate
Time frame: Baseline (Pre-dose and 1 hour Post-dose), Week 4, 16, Early Termination (up to 113 days)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Jun 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 25919474Sopata M, Katz N, Carey W, Smith MD, Keller D, Verburg KM, West CR, Wolfram G, Brown MT. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of pain from bone metastases. Pain. 2015 Sep;156(9):1703-1713. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000211.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 21941281Bapat AA, Hostetter G, Von Hoff DD, Han H. Perineural invasion and associated pain in pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011 Sep 23;11(10):695-707. doi: 10.1038/nrc3131.
- To obtain contact information for a study center near you, click here.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Pfizer will provide access to individual de-identified participant data and related study documents (e.g. protocol, Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP), Clinical Study Report (CSR)) upon request from qualified researchers, and subject to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions. Further details on Pfizer's data sharing criteria and process for requesting access can be found at: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical_trials/trial_data_and_results/data_requests.
Related trials for Neoplasm Metastasis
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
Enrolling by invitationPhase 2
A Single-Arm Study of Nimotuzumab Combined With NALIRIFOX as First-Line Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer
Pancreatic Cancer Metastatic
RecruitingPhase 1/2
Study of INBRX-106 and INBRX-106 in Combination With Pembrolizumab (Keytruda®) in Subjects With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Solid Tumors (Hexavalent OX40 Agonist)
Solid Tumor, Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
A Prospective ,Multicenter ,Non-interventional ,Real-world Study Observing Changes in Molecular Markers Osimertinib Targeted Therapy in EGFRm NSCLC
Non Small Cell Lung Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
A Non-Interventional Study PASS to Characterize Secondary Malignancies of Tcell Origin Following Tisagenlecleucel Therapy
Secondary Malignancies of T-cell Origin
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center study director
Pfizer
39 sites in 13 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 2 study testing Tanezumab 10 mg IV in people with Neoplasm Metastasis and Palliative Care, run by Pfizer at 39 sites in 13 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Jun 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 39 sites in United States, India, Poland, Austria, Hungary and 8 more countries. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 18 Jun 2021). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change From Baseline in Daily Average Pain Intensity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Score at Week 6 (time frame: Baseline, Week 6). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00545129, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 18 Jun 2021.