WOMAC Meaningful Within-patient Change: Results From 3 Studies of Tanezumab in Patients With Moderate-to-severe Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Jaeschke R,
   2. Singer J,
   3. Guyatt GH.

   Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Angst F,
   2. Aeschlimann A,
   3. Angst J.

   The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;82:128-36.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Redelmeier DA,
   2. Lorig K.

   Assessing the clinical importance of symptomatic improvements. An illustration in rheumatology. Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1337-42.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Dworkin RH,
   2. Turk DC,
   3. Wyrwich KW, et al.

   Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105-21.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Dworkin RH,
   2. Turk DC,
   3. McDermott MP, et al.

   Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2009;146:238-44.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Guyatt GH,
   2. Juniper EF,
   3. Walter SD,
   4. Griffith LE,
   5. Goldstein RS.

   Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ 1998;316:690-3.

   OpenUrlFREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

   . Patient-focused drug development guidance series for enhancing the incorporation of the patient’s voice in medical product development and regulatory decision making. Draft guidance documents. [Internet. Accessed February 24, 2022.] Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/fda-patient-focused-drug-development-guidance-series-enhancing-incorporation-patients-voice-medical
8. 8.↵
   1. Schmitt J,
   2. Di Fabio RP.

   The validity of prospective and retrospective global change criterion measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:2270-6.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Farrar JT,
   2. Young JP Jr,
   3. LaMoreaux L,
   4. Werth JL,
   5. Poole RM.

   Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain 2001;94:149-58.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Doganay Erdogan B,
    2. Leung YY,
    3. Pohl C,
    4. Tennant A,
    5. Conaghan PG.

    Minimal clinically important difference as applied in rheumatology: an OMERACT Rasch Working Group systematic review and critique. J Rheumatol 2016;43:194-202.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Ward JR,
    2. Williams HJ,
    3. Egger MJ, et al.

    Comparison of auranofin, gold sodium thiomalate, and placebo in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. A controlled clinical trial. Arthritis Rheum 1983; 26:1303-15.

    OpenUrlPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Deandrade JR,
    2. Casagrande PA.

    A seven-day variability study of 499 patients with peripheral rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1965;8:302-34.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Schnitzer TJ,
    2. Easton R,
    3. Pang S, et al.

    Effect of tanezumab on joint pain, physical function, and patient global assessment of osteoarthritis among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2019;322:37-48.

    OpenUrl
14. 14.↵
    1. Berenbaum F,
    2. Blanco FJ,
    3. Guermazi A, et al.

    Subcutaneous tanezumab for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: efficacy and safety results from a 24-week randomised phase III study with a 24-week follow-up period. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79:800-10.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Hochberg MC,
    2. Carrino JA,
    3. Schnitzer TJ, et al.

    Long-term safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tanezumab versus nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for hip or knee osteoarthritis: a randomized trial. Arthritis Rheumatol 2021; 73:1167-77.

    OpenUrl
16. 16.↵
    1. Bellamy N.

    WOMAC osteoarthritis index: user guide IX. Brisbane: Nicholas Bellamy; 2008.
17. 17.↵
    1. Cappelleri JC,
    2. Zou KH,
    3. Bushmakin AG,
    4. Alvir JMJ,
    5. Alemayehu D,
    6. Symonds T.

    Patient-reported outcomes: measurement, implementation and interpretation. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2013.
18. 18.↵
    1. Fairclough DL.

    Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2010.
19. 19.↵
    1. Fitzmaurice GM,
    2. Laird NM,
    3. Ware JH.

    Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
20. 20.↵
    1. Crosby RD,
    2. Kolotkin RL,
    3. Williams GR.

    Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:395-407.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Revicki D,
    2. Hays RD,
    3. Cella D,
    4. Sloan J.

    Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:102-9.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Cappelleri JC,
    2. Bushmakin AG.

    Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2014;23:460-83.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Dworkin RH.

    Two very different types of clinical importance. Contemp Clin Trials 2016;46:11.

    OpenUrl
24. 24.↵
    1. Tubach F,
    2. Ravaud P,
    3. Baron G, et al.

    Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:29-33.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Ehrich EW,
    2. Davies GM,
    3. Watson DJ,
    4. Bolognese JA,
    5. Seidenberg BC,
    6. Bellamy N.

    Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2000;27:2635-41.

    OpenUrlPubMed