ConductScience.org, home

Trial · NCT02528253

Outcomes66

Each outcome the trial posted results for, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.

TypeOutcomeTime framePopulationUnitsMeasured as
PRIMARYChange From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score for Tanezumab Versus (Vs) Placebo at Week 16Baseline, Week 16
ITT population:randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of SC study medication(either tanezumab or matching placebo).Pre-specified intent of study for efficacy data up to W16 was to analyze participants who received placebo from Day1 and then received tanezumab 5/10 mg at W16,together,in placebo arm.Data has been reported per four arms.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) at Week 16 for Tanezumab Versus (Vs) PlaceboBaseline, Week 16
ITT population:randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of SC study medication(either tanezumab or matching placebo).Pre-specified intent of study for efficacy data up to W16 was to analyze participants who received placebo from Day1 and then received tanezumab 5/10 mg at W16,together,in placebo arm.Data has been reported per four arms.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score for Tanezumab Versus (Vs) Tramadol at Week 16Baseline, Week 16
ITT population:randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of SC study medication(either tanezumab or matching placebo).Pre-specified intent of study for efficacy data up to W16 was to analyze participants who received placebo from Day1 and then received tanezumab 5/10 mg at W16,together,in placebo arm.Data has been reported per four arms.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Daily Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Week 64Baseline, Week 64
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). 'Number analyzed' (n)= participants evaluable for this outcome measure (OM) at specified time point.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Total Score at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16 (for Tanezumab vs Tramadol) 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Score at Weeks 64 and 80: Observed DataBaseline, Weeks 64 and 80
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here, 'number analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure at specified time points.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) of Low Back Pain at Week 64: Observed DataBaseline, Week 64
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here, 'Number analyzed' = participants evaluable for this outcome measure at specified time point.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Daily Average Low Back Pain Intensity (LBPI) Score at Weeks 16, 24 and 56: Mixed Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)/Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline, Weeks 16, 24 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16. Overall Number of Participants analyzed(N)=participants evaluable for this outcome measure (OM).
percentage of participantsNUMBER
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving Average LBPI Reduction of >=30 Percent(%), >=50%, >=70% and >=90% From Baseline at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Mixed Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)/Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16. N=participants evaluable for this OM.
percentage of participantsNUMBER
SECONDARY
Percentage of Participants Achieving RMDQ Reduction of >=30%, >=50%, >=70% and >=90% From Baseline at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Mixed Baseline Observation Carried Forward (BOCF)/Last Observation Carried Forward (LOCF)
Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16. N =participants evaluable for this OM.
percentage of participantsNUMBER
SECONDARYPercentage of Participants With Cumulative Percent Change From Baseline in Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) Score at Weeks 16, 24 and 56Baseline, Weeks 16, 24 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this OM,as those who met criteria to continue,switched to active treatment with tanezumab(tan) after W16.N=participants evaluable for this OM.Intent of study was to compare tan V placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tan Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
percentage of participantsNUMBER
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-short Form (BPI-sf) Score Worst Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56Baseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Score Worst Pain at Week 64: Observed DataBaseline, Week 64
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here, 'n' = participants evaluable for this OM at specified time points.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Scores Average Pain at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Observed DataBaseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Score Average Pain at Week 64: Observed DataBaseline, Week 64
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here, 'number analyzed' = participants evaluable for this OM at specified time point.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Score Pain Interference Index at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Observed DataBaseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Score Pain Interference Index at Week 64: Observed DataBaseline, Week 64
ITT population included all randomized participants who received at least one dose of SC study medication (either tanezumab or matching placebo). Here, 'n' = participants evaluable for this OM at specified time point.
units on a scaleMEAN
SECONDARYChange From Baseline in Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-sf) Score Pain Interference With General Activity at Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56: Observed DataBaseline, Weeks 2, 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48 and 56
ITT population.Data were not collected after W16 in placebo arm for this outcome measure, as those who met criteria to continue, switched to active treatment with tanezumab after W16.Pre-specified intent of study was to compare tanezumab Vs placebo for data up to \& including W16 \& comparisons of tanezumab Vs tramadol for data up to \& including W56.
units on a scaleLEAST_SQUARES_MEAN

Source ClinicalTrials.govtrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0

Sources 3

  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
  • ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
  • ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
  • ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
  • NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)

ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.

For software

Read this list from software.

Twenty rows a page, as JSON. No key.

GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02528253/outcomes