, Volume 77, Issue 13, pp 1377–1387 | Cite as

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

  • Bernard BannwarthEmail author
  • Marie Kostine
Current Opinion


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


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No sources of funding were used to support the writing of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Bernard Bannwarth has received consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer and Lilly. Marie Kostine has received support from Pfizer for attendance at a scientific meeting.


  1. 1.
    Turk DC, Wilson HD, Canaha A. Treatment of chronic non-cancer pain. Lancet. 2011;377:2226–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chou R, Deyo R, Friedly J, et al. Systemic pharmacologic therapies for low back pain: a systematic review for an American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166:480–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kalso E, Aldington DJ, Moore RA. Drugs for neuropathic pain. BMJ. 2013;347:f7339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman BH, McDermott JS. Targeting the nerve growth factor (NGF) pathway in drug discovery: potential applications to new therapies for chronic pain. J Med Chem. 2017;60:66–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bannwarth B, Kostine M. Targeting nerve growth factor (NGF) for pain management: what does the future hold for NGF antagonists? Drugs. 2014;74:619–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor P. J & J drops NGF blocker fulranumab. PMLiVE, 4 April 2016. Available from: Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
  7. 7.
    Miller CG, Guermazi A, Roemer F. The current status of imaging in anti-NGF clinical trials. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(Suppl. 1):S3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schnitzer TJ, Marks JA. A systematic review of the efficacy and general safety of antibodies to NGF in the treatment of OA of the hip or knee. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2015;23(Suppl. 1):S8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leite VF, Buehler AM, El Abd O, et al. Anti-nerve growth factor in the treatment of low back pain and radiculopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Phys. 2014;17:E45–60.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Katz N, Borenstein DG, Birbara C, et al. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Pain. 2011;152:2248–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kivitz AJ, Gimbel JS, Bramson C, et al. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab versus naproxen in the treatment of chronic low back pain. Pain. 2013;154:1009–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bombardier C, Evans CJ, Katz N, et al. Further qualification of therapeutic responder index for patients with chronic low back pain. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:362–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sanga P, Polverejan E, Wang S, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fulranumab as an adjunctive therapy in patients with inadequately controlled, moderate-to-severe chronic low back pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, dose-loading phase II study. Clin Ther. 2016;38:1435–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tiseo PJ, Ren H, Mellis S. Fasinumab (REGN475), an antinerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of acute sciatic pain: results of a proof-of-concept study. J Pain Res. 2014;7:523–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Regeneron and Teva provide update on fasinumab clinical development programs. Available from: Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
  16. 16.
    Bramson C, Herrmann DN, Carey W, et al. Exploring the role of tanezumab as a novel treatment for the relief of neuropathic pain. Pain Med. 2015;16:1163–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang H, Romano G, Frustaci ME, et al. Fulranumab for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a randomized controlled trial. Neurology. 2014;83:628–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang H, Romano G, Fedgchin M, et al. Fulranumab in pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia and posttraumatic neuropathy: efficacy, safety, and tolerability results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase-2 study. Clin J Pain. 2017;33:99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Unezaki S, Sasaki A, Mabuchi T, et al. Involvement of Tyr1472 phosphorylation of NMDA receptor NR2B subunit in postherpetic neuralgia in model mice. Mol Pain. 2012;8:59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sopata M, Katz N, Carey W, et al. Efficacy and safety of tanezumab in the treatment of pain from bone metastases. Pain. 2015;156:1703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Slatkin N, Zaki N, Sanga P, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fulranumab as an adjunctive therapy for cancer-related pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study [abstract]. J Pain. 2016;17(Suppl. 4):S70–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nickel JC, Mills IW, Crook TJ, et al. Tanezumab reduces pain in women with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and patients with nonurological associated somatic syndrome. J Urol. 2016;195:942–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Evans RJ, Moldwin RM, Cossons N, et al. Proof of concept trial of tanezumab for the treatment of symptoms associated with interstitial cystitis. J Urol. 2011;85:1716–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nickel JC, Atkinson G, Krieger JN, et al. Preliminary assessment of safety and efficacy in proof-of-concept, randomized clinical trial of tanezumab for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome. Urology. 2012;80:1105–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rask CA. Biological actions of nerve growth factor in the peripheral nervous system. Eur Neurol. 1999;41(Suppl. 1):14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown MT, Herrmann DN, Goldstein M, et al. Nerve safety of tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor for pain treatment. J Neurol Sci. 2014;345:139–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hochberg MC, Tive LA, Abramson SB, et al. When is osteonecrosis not osteonecrosis? Adjudication of reported serious adverse joint events in the tanezumab clinical development program. Arthr Rheumatol. 2016;68:382–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    JNJ-42160443 (fulranumab) Advisory Committee briefing document, Janssen Research & Development, L.L.C., 31 January 2012. Available from: Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
  29. 29.
    REGN475 briefing book for Arthritis Advisory Committee Meeting. Regeneron, March 2012. Available from: Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
  30. 30.
    Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Arthritis Advisory Committee Meeting, 2012. Available from: Accessed 13 Apr 2017.
  31. 31.
    Teichtahl AJ, Cicuttini FM. Pain relief: the potential for a perfect storm. Arthr Rheumatol. 2016;68:270–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schaeverbeke T, Truchetet ME, Kostine M, et al. Immunogenicity of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis patients: lessons for clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016;55:210–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schnitzer TJ, Lane NE, Birbara C, et al. Long-term open-label study of tanezumab for moderate to severe osteoarthritic knee pain. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2011;19:639–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gimbel JS, Kivitz AJ, Bramson C, et al. Long-term safety and effectiveness of tanezumab as treatment for chronic low back pain. Pain. 2014;155:1793–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Rheumatology, Pellegrin HospitalUniversity Hospital of BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Division of Health, Department of TherapeuticsUniversity of BordeauxBordeauxFrance

Personalised recommendations