Trial Review

Please note that the ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1:00pm until 2:00pm (AEST) on Thursday 10th of April for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data. Thank you and apologies for any inconvenience caused.


The ANZCTR website is back online for trial registration and updates. We apologise for any inconvenience caused while the site was inactive.


With activity expected to increase on the ANZCTR again, there may be extended wait times while we process pending studies, with priority being given to those trials submitted in February. Thank you for your patience.


Reset your password and enable multi-factor authentication (MFA)


For ANZCTR account holders: to help ensure the cyber safety of your account, you’ll need to reset your password and set-up multi-factor authentication (MFA) as per the instructions below.


  1. Go to the Login page, click ‘reset password’ and follow the instructions.
  2. Check your email for the link to set a new password.
  3. Create a new password that meets requirements.
  4. Return to the Login page and enter your new password. A verification code will be sent to your email.
  5. Check your email for the code and enter it on the Login page. If the code is entered incorrectly, you can re-enter the correct one or request a new one.

Learn more about MFA and its importance on the Australian Signals Directorate website.

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov

For full trial details, please see the original record at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00565812




Registration number
NCT00565812
Ethics application status
Date submitted
29/11/2007
Date registered
30/11/2007
Date last updated
30/12/2016

Titles & IDs
Public title
A Long-Term, Placebo-Controlled X-Ray Study Investigating the Safety and Efficacy of SD-6010 in Subjects With Osteoarthritis of the Knee
Scientific title
A Long-Term, Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled, Radiographic Study To Investigate The Safety And Efficacy Of Orally Administered SD-6010 In Subjects With Symptomatic Osteoarthritis Of The Knee
Secondary ID [1] 0 0
2007-001457-26
Secondary ID [2] 0 0
A6171016
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
ITIC
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Osteoarthritis 0 0
Condition category
Condition code
Musculoskeletal 0 0 0 0
Osteoarthritis

Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - SD-6010
Treatment: Drugs - SD-6010
Treatment: Drugs - Placebo

Active comparator: 200 mg - High dose active comparator

Active comparator: 50 mg - Low dose active comparator

Placebo comparator: Placebo - Placebo comparator to be used for control purposes


Treatment: Drugs: SD-6010
200 mg tablets once a day for 2 years

Treatment: Drugs: SD-6010
50 mg tablets once a day for 2 years

Treatment: Drugs: Placebo
Placebo tablets once a day for 2 years
Intervention code [1] 0 0
Treatment: Drugs
Comparator / control treatment
Control group

Outcomes
Primary outcome [1] 0 0
Rate of Progression of Joint Space Narrowing
Assessment method [1] 0 0
Rate of progression of joint space narrowing (JSN) was defined as narrowing in joint space width (JSW) over the course of the study. It was measured radiographically in the medial tibiofemoral of knee of participants with OA. The slope reported in millimeter per year (mm/year) over a 2 year period was used to assess the rate of progression of JSN. Negative values indicating a worsening of osteoarthritis.
Timepoint [1] 0 0
Baseline up to Month 24
Primary outcome [2] 0 0
Rate of Progression of Joint Space Narrowing in Participants With Kellgren and Lawrence Grade Less Than or Equal to (<=) 2
Assessment method [2] 0 0
Rate of progression of JSN was defined as narrowing in joint space width over the course of the study. It was measured radiographically in the medial tibiofemoral of knee of participants with OA. The slope reported in mm/year over a 2 year period was used to assess the rate of progression of JSN. KLG system was a method of classifying the severity of knee OA using five grades (0 \[no severity\] to 4 \[maximum severity\], higher grade indicating worse knee function). Negative values of slope indicating a worsening of osteoarthritis.
Timepoint [2] 0 0
Baseline up to Month 24
Primary outcome [3] 0 0
Rate of Progression of Joint Space Narrowing in Participants With Kellgren and Lawrence Grade Equal to (=) 3
Assessment method [3] 0 0
Rate of progression of JSN was defined as narrowing in joint space width over the course of the study. It was measured radiographically in the medial tibiofemoral of knee of participants with OA. The slope reported in mm/year over a 2 year period was used to assess the rate of progression of JSN. KLG system was a method of classifying the severity of knee OA using five grades (0 \[no severity\] to 4 \[maximum severity\], higher grade indicating worse knee function). Negative values of slope indicating a worsening of osteoarthritis.
Timepoint [3] 0 0
Baseline up to Month 24
Secondary outcome [1] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Composite Index Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [1] 0 0
The WOMAC was a self-administered, disease-specific instrument which probed clinically important, participant relevant symptoms in the areas of pain, stiffness, and physical function in participants with OA of the knee. The WOMAC composite index was the sum of 24 individual questions regarding subscales of pain, stiffness and physical function (for each item score range: 0 \[minimum\] to 4 \[maximum\], higher score indicating worse knee condition). Total score was sum of the 3 subscale scores, giving a possible overall score range of 0 (minimum) to 96 (maximum). Higher score indicating the worse level of pain, stiffness and physical function.
Timepoint [1] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [2] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index Pain Subscale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [2] 0 0
The WOMAC pain subscale was comprised of 5 questions regarding the amount of pain experienced due to OA in the study knee. The WOMAC pain subscale score for each question ranged from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), higher scores signified worse pain. An overall subscale score range of 0 (minimum) to 20 (maximum), with higher scores indicating more pain.
Timepoint [2] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [3] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index Pain Stiffness Subscale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [3] 0 0
Stiffness was defined as a sensation of decreased ease in which the participant moved the knee with OA. The WOMAC stiffness subscale was comprised of 2 questions regarding the degree of stiffness experienced in the study knee. The WOMAC stiffness subscale score for each question ranged from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), higher scores signified worse stiffness. An overall score range of 0 (minimum) to 8 (maximum), with higher scores indicating more stiffness.
Timepoint [3] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [4] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index Physical Function Subscale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [4] 0 0
The WOMAC physical function subscale referred to the participant's ability to move around and perform usual activities of daily living. The WOMAC physical function subscale was comprised of 17 questions regarding the degree of difficulty experienced due to OA in the study knee. The WOMAC physical function subscale score for each question ranged from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), higher scores signified worse physical function. An overall score range of 0 (minimum) to 68 (maximum), with higher scores indicating worse physical function.
Timepoint [4] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [5] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Patient Assessment of Arthritic Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [5] 0 0
Pain VAS was a self-administered instrument, a 100 millimeter (mm) line marked by participant. Intensity of pain range (over past week): 0 (mm) =no pain to 100 (mm) =worst possible pain. Higher score indicating severe pain.
Timepoint [5] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [6] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Patient Global Assessment of Arthritic Condition Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [6] 0 0
Participants answered: "Considering all the ways your arthritis affects you, how are you feeling today?" Participants responded by using the scale ranging from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum), where 1 =very good, 2 =good, 3 =fair, 4 =poor and 5 =very poor. Higher scores indicating worse condition.
Timepoint [6] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [7] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Physician's Global Assessment of Arthritic Condition Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [7] 0 0
Physician assessed the overall impact of arthritis on the participant's daily life. Participant's condition was rated by the physician using the scale ranging from 1 (minimum) to 5 (maximum), where 1= very good, 2= good, 3= fair, 4= poor and 5= very poor. Higher scores indicating worse condition.
Timepoint [7] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [8] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Pain After a 50-foot Walk Using Pain Visual Analog Scale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [8] 0 0
The pain VAS following a 50 foot walk was a single-item, self-administered instrument. Participants were asked to assess the pain due to OA in their study knee after a 50-foot walk. Participants responded on a VAS scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (severe pain). Higher scores indicating more pain.
Timepoint [8] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [9] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Osteoarthritis Pain Assessment Tool-Knee Joint Total Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [9] 0 0
The OA pain and assessment tool-knee joint is also known as the intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) scale. The OA pain assessment tool-knee joint was an 11-item scale, with each item scored from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), where 4 indicated worst health condition. The total score was calculated by adding the 11 items and rescaled to a 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) scale, where higher scores indicating worse health.
Timepoint [9] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [10] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Osteoarthritis Pain Assessment Tool-Knee Joint Constant Pain Subscale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [10] 0 0
The OA pain assessment tool-knee joint constant pain subscale was a 5 item scale, with each item scored from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), where 4 indicated worst health condition. Overall subscale score was calculated by adding the 5 items and rescaled to a 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) scale, where higher scores indicating worse constant pain.
Timepoint [10] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [11] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Osteoarthritis Pain Assessment Tool-Knee Joint Intermittent Pain Subscale Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [11] 0 0
The OA pain assessment tool-knee joint intermittent pain subscale score a 6 item scale, with each item scored from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), where 4 indicated worst health condition. Overall subscale score was calculated by adding the 6 items and rescaled to a 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) scale, where higher scores indicating worse intermittent pain.
Timepoint [11] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [12] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Knee Function Survey Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [12] 0 0
The OARSI knee function survey was an 11-item scale with each item scored 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), where 4 indicated worst health condition. The total score was the sum of the 11 items and ranged from 0 (minimum) to 44 (maximum), where higher scores indicating worse health condition.
Timepoint [12] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [13] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS) Score at Month 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24
Assessment method [13] 0 0
The KOOS-PS was used to rate participant's opinions about the difficulties they experienced with activity due to problems with their knee. It was a 7-item scale, each item scored from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum), where 4 indicated worst health condition. Total score was calculated by adding the responses to 7 items and rescaled to a 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) scale, where higher scores indicating worse health condition.
Timepoint [13] 0 0
Baseline, Month 3, 6, 12, 18, 24
Secondary outcome [14] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 (SF-36) Physical Functioning Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [14] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 16.18 (minimum) to 57.11 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better physical functioning.
Timepoint [14] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [15] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Role - Physical Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [15] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 18.45 (minimum) to 56.62 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better role-physical.
Timepoint [15] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [16] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [16] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 19.23 (minimum) to 60.88 (maximum), with higher scores indicating lower bodily pain.
Timepoint [16] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [17] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 General Health Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [17] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 16.75 (minimum) to 63.72 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better general health.
Timepoint [17] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [18] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Vitality Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [18] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 22.02 (minimum) to 69.92 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better vitality.
Timepoint [18] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [19] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Social Functioning Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [19] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 13.38 (minimum) to 56.40 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better social functioning.
Timepoint [19] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [20] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Role-Emotional Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [20] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 10.25 (minimum) to 55.68 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better role-emotional.
Timepoint [20] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [21] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Mental Health Domain Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [21] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 8.02 (minimum) to 63.43 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better mental health.
Timepoint [21] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [22] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Physical Health Component Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [22] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 22.88 (minimum) to 58.69 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better physical health.
Timepoint [22] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [23] 0 0
Change From Baseline in Short Form-36 Mental Health Component Score at Month 12 and 24
Assessment method [23] 0 0
The SF-36 was a participant administered scale assessing general quality of life. It consisted of self-administered 36-item questionnaire that measured 8 health domains: physical functioning, role-physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional, and mental health. These 8 domains were also summarized as physical and mental component scores. The score for each domain and component score was the mean of the individual question scores, which were scaled from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), where higher scores indicated highest level of health/functioning. Linear transformations were performed to transform scores and rescaled to a score range of 11.11 (minimum) to 61.67 (maximum), with higher scores indicating better mental health.
Timepoint [23] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [24] 0 0
Number of Participants With EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) Mobility Domain Score
Assessment method [24] 0 0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Health state profile component assessed level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety and depression. EQ-5D mobility domain score scale ranged from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum), where 1 =better health (no problem), 2 =moderate health (some problems) and 3 =worst health (confined to bed). Higher scores indicating worse health condition. Participants with EQ-5D mobility domain score were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [24] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [25] 0 0
Number of Participants With EuroQoL-5D Self-Care Domain Score
Assessment method [25] 0 0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Health state profile component assessed level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety and depression. EQ-5D self-care domain score scale ranged from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum), where 1 =better health (no problems with self-care), 2 =moderate health (some problems) and 3 =worst health (unable to wash or dress). Higher scores indicating worse health condition. Participants with EQ-5D self-care domain score were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [25] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [26] 0 0
Number of Participants With EuroQoL-5D Usual Activity Domain Score
Assessment method [26] 0 0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Health state profile component assessed level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety and depression. EQ-5D usual activity domain score scale ranged from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum), where 1 =better health (no problems), 2 =moderate health (some problems) and 3 =worst health state (unable to perform usual activities). Higher scores indicating worse health condition. Participants with EQ-5D usual activity domain score were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [26] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [27] 0 0
Number of Participants With EuroQo-5D Pain and Discomfort Domain Score
Assessment method [27] 0 0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Health state profile component assessed level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, anxiety and depression. EQ-5D pain and discomfort domain score scale ranged from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum), where 1 =better health (no pain and discomfort), 2 =moderate health (moderate pain and discomfort) and 3 =worst health state (extreme pain and discomfort). Higher scores indicated worse health condition. Participants with EQ-5D pain and discomfort domain score were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [27] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [28] 0 0
Number of Participants With EuroQoL-5D Anxiety and Depression Domain Score
Assessment method [28] 0 0
EQ-5D: participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life. Health state profile component assessed level of current health for 5 domains: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and discomfort, and anxiety and depression. EQ-5D anxiety and depression domain score scale ranged from 1 (minimum) to 3 (maximum), where 1 =better health (not anxious, depressed), 2 =moderate health (moderately anxious, depressed) and 3 =worst health (extremely anxious, depressed). Higher scores indicating worse health condition. Participants with EQ-5D anxiety and depression domain score were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [28] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [29] 0 0
EuroQoL-5D Visual Analog Scale Score
Assessment method [29] 0 0
The EQ-5D VAS score was a participant rated questionnaire to assess health-related quality of life in terms of a single index value. It was a visual analogue scale that ranged from 0 (minimum) to 100 (maximum), with higher scores indicating a better health condition.
Timepoint [29] 0 0
Baseline, Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [30] 0 0
Number of Participants With Increase in Total Analgesic Medication Use
Assessment method [30] 0 0
Increase in total analgesic medication use for OA in the study knee was a comparison back to baseline of an increased and sustained use of standard background and/or rescue medication for more than 28 days as measured at the Month 12 and 24 visits. Only medications for OA knee pain were considered.
Timepoint [30] 0 0
Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [31] 0 0
Number of Participants With Decrease in Total Analgesic Medication Use
Assessment method [31] 0 0
Decrease in total analgesic medication use for OA in the study knee was a comparison back to baseline of a decreased and irregular use of standard background and/or rescue medication for more than 28 days as measured at the Month 12 and 24 visits. Only medications for OA knee pain were considered.
Timepoint [31] 0 0
Month 12, 24
Secondary outcome [32] 0 0
Patient Global Impression of Change Score
Assessment method [32] 0 0
Patient global impression of change was a participant-rated instrument that measured change in participant's overall status on a 7-point scale ranging from: 1 =very much improved, 2 =much improved, 3 =minimally improved, 4 =no change, 5 =minimally worse, 6 =much worse and 7 =very much worse. Higher scores indicating worse condition.
Timepoint [32] 0 0
Month 24
Secondary outcome [33] 0 0
Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) Responder Index
Assessment method [33] 0 0
The OMERACT-OARSI responder index was used to determine whether participants may be considered responders to treatment. An OMERACT-OARSI responder was a participant who had a better response on the WOMAC pain subscale score, a better response on the WOMAC physical function subscale score or improvement on at least two of the three domains: WOMAC pain subscale score (overall score range of 0 \[minimum\] to 20 \[maximum\], higher scores indicating more pain), WOMAC physical function subscale score (overall score range of 0 \[minimum\] to 68 \[maximum\], higher scores indicating worse physical function) and patient global assessment of arthritic condition score (overall score range of 1 \[minimum\] to 5 \[maximum\], higher scores indicating worse condition). Number of participants who were OMERACT-OARSI responder were reported in this measure.
Timepoint [33] 0 0
Month 24
Secondary outcome [34] 0 0
Number of Participants With Joint Space Narrowing Progression
Assessment method [34] 0 0
JSN progressor was defined as a participant with a decrease in joint space width that was greater in magnitude than the smallest detectable difference (0.199 mm).
Timepoint [34] 0 0
Month 24
Secondary outcome [35] 0 0
Number of Participants Applicable for Virtual Joint Replacement
Assessment method [35] 0 0
A virtual joint replacement candidate was defined as a participant whose last two WOMAC pain subscale scores (overall score range of 0 \[minimum\] to 20 \[maximum\], higher scores indicating more pain) were at least 8, last two WOMAC physical function subscale scores (overall score range of 0 \[minimum\] to 68 \[maximum\], higher scores indicating worse physical function) were at least 28 and was a joint space narrowing progressor (a participant with a decrease in JSW that was greater in magnitude than the smallest detectable difference =0.199 mm).
Timepoint [35] 0 0
Month 24

Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* Subjects aged >= 40 years with a BMI >= 25 and <= 40 kg/m2
* In the past, has been diagnosed with knee OA
* Radiographic evidence of OA in the study knee
Minimum age
40 Years
Maximum age
99 Years
Sex
Both males and females
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Key exclusion criteria
* A diagnosis of any other rheumatic disease
* Current conditions in the study knee that would confound efficacy
* Selected, traditional clinical safety and laboratory parameters

Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s

The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Other design features
Phase
Phase 2
Type of endpoint/s
Statistical methods / analysis

Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Data analysis
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Other reasons
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
1/11/2007
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Actual
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Actual
1/11/2011
Sample size
Target
Accrual to date
Final
1457
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
TAS
Recruitment hospital [1] 0 0
Menzies Research Institute - Hobart
Recruitment postcode(s) [1] 0 0
7000 - Hobart
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [1] 0 0
Alabama
Country [2] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [2] 0 0
Arizona
Country [3] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [3] 0 0
Arkansas
Country [4] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [4] 0 0
California
Country [5] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [5] 0 0
Colorado
Country [6] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [6] 0 0
Connecticut
Country [7] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [7] 0 0
Florida
Country [8] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [8] 0 0
Georgia
Country [9] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [9] 0 0
Hawaii
Country [10] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [10] 0 0
Illinois
Country [11] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [11] 0 0
Indiana
Country [12] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [12] 0 0
Kansas
Country [13] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [13] 0 0
Kentucky
Country [14] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [14] 0 0
Louisiana
Country [15] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [15] 0 0
Maine
Country [16] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [16] 0 0
Maryland
Country [17] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [17] 0 0
Massachusetts
Country [18] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [18] 0 0
Michigan
Country [19] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [19] 0 0
Mississippi
Country [20] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [20] 0 0
Missouri
Country [21] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [21] 0 0
Nevada
Country [22] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [22] 0 0
New York
Country [23] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [23] 0 0
North Carolina
Country [24] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [24] 0 0
North Dakota
Country [25] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [25] 0 0
Ohio
Country [26] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [26] 0 0
Pennsylvania
Country [27] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [27] 0 0
Rhode Island
Country [28] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [28] 0 0
South Carolina
Country [29] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [29] 0 0
Tennessee
Country [30] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [30] 0 0
Texas
Country [31] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [31] 0 0
Utah
Country [32] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [32] 0 0
Virginia
Country [33] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [33] 0 0
Washington
Country [34] 0 0
United States of America
State/province [34] 0 0
Wisconsin
Country [35] 0 0
Argentina
State/province [35] 0 0
Buenos Aires
Country [36] 0 0
Belgium
State/province [36] 0 0
Bruxelles
Country [37] 0 0
Belgium
State/province [37] 0 0
Leuven
Country [38] 0 0
Canada
State/province [38] 0 0
Alberta
Country [39] 0 0
Canada
State/province [39] 0 0
Newfoundland and Labrador
Country [40] 0 0
Canada
State/province [40] 0 0
Ontario
Country [41] 0 0
Canada
State/province [41] 0 0
Quebec
Country [42] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [42] 0 0
Brno - Zidenice
Country [43] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [43] 0 0
Brno
Country [44] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [44] 0 0
Ceske Budejovice
Country [45] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [45] 0 0
Hostivice
Country [46] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [46] 0 0
Praha 11 - Chodov
Country [47] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [47] 0 0
Praha 1
Country [48] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [48] 0 0
Praha 2
Country [49] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [49] 0 0
Praha 6
Country [50] 0 0
Czech Republic
State/province [50] 0 0
Zlin
Country [51] 0 0
Germany
State/province [51] 0 0
Bad Hersfeld
Country [52] 0 0
Germany
State/province [52] 0 0
Berlin
Country [53] 0 0
Germany
State/province [53] 0 0
Deggingen
Country [54] 0 0
Germany
State/province [54] 0 0
Schwerin
Country [55] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [55] 0 0
Budapest
Country [56] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [56] 0 0
Eger
Country [57] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [57] 0 0
Gyula
Country [58] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [58] 0 0
Komarom
Country [59] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [59] 0 0
Szolnok
Country [60] 0 0
Hungary
State/province [60] 0 0
Veszprem
Country [61] 0 0
Italy
State/province [61] 0 0
Arenzano
Country [62] 0 0
Italy
State/province [62] 0 0
Jesi (Ancona)
Country [63] 0 0
Italy
State/province [63] 0 0
Milano
Country [64] 0 0
Peru
State/province [64] 0 0
Lima
Country [65] 0 0
Peru
State/province [65] 0 0
Callao
Country [66] 0 0
Poland
State/province [66] 0 0
Cieszyn
Country [67] 0 0
Poland
State/province [67] 0 0
Wroclaw
Country [68] 0 0
Russian Federation
State/province [68] 0 0
Moscow
Country [69] 0 0
Russian Federation
State/province [69] 0 0
St. Petersburg
Country [70] 0 0
Slovakia
State/province [70] 0 0
Bratislava
Country [71] 0 0
Slovakia
State/province [71] 0 0
Piestany
Country [72] 0 0
Spain
State/province [72] 0 0
A Coruña
Country [73] 0 0
Spain
State/province [73] 0 0
Guadalajara
Country [74] 0 0
Spain
State/province [74] 0 0
Sevilla

Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Name
Pfizer
Country

Ethics approval
Ethics application status

Summary
Brief summary
Trial website
Trial related presentations / publications
Public notes

Contacts
Principal investigator
Name 0 0
Pfizer CT.gov Call Center
Address 0 0
Pfizer
Country 0 0
Phone 0 0
Email 0 0
Contact person for public queries
Name 0 0
Address 0 0
Country 0 0
Phone 0 0
Email 0 0
Contact person for scientific queries

No information has been provided regarding IPD availability


What supporting documents are/will be available?

No Supporting Document Provided



Results publications and other study-related documents

No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.

Results are available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00565812