SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Fasinumab for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveFasinumab, a newly developed anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, has been evaluated in clinical trials for its potential to alleviate symptoms in osteoarthritis patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of different Fasinumab dosages compared with placebo in patients with osteoarthritis.
methodsPubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched for double-blinded RCTs comparing Fasinumab with placebo till December 2025. Primary outcomes were WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) scores. Secondary outcomes included safety profile such as Adjudicated Arthropathy, Adverse events, serious adverse events, all-cause mortality. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 was used for quality assessment. A random effects model was used for analysis, with subgrouping by dosage.
resultsSix RCTs, involving 9,429 participants, were included. All trials included had a low risk of bias. At 16 weeks, 1 mg Subcutaneous (SC) Every four weeks (Q4W), 1 mg SC Every eight weeks (Q8W), and 3 mg SC Q4W showed a greater statistically significant reduction in WOMAC pain and function scores compared to placebo. However, according to minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs), only 1 mg SC Q4W and 3 mg SC Q4W may provide clinically meaningful reductions in WOMAC pain ([MD: -1.05, (95% C.I. -1.32 to -0.78), p < 0.00001, I²=28%] and [MD: -1.16, (95% C.I. -1.58 to -0.75), p < 0.00001, I²=0%], respectively) and function scores ([-1.05 (95% C.I. -1.32 to -0.79), p < 0.00001, I²=20%] and [MD: -1.24, (95% C.I. -1.65 to -0.83), p < 0.00001, I²=0%], respectively) more than placebo; however, the confidence intervals include effects smaller than the MCID threshold, limiting certainty regarding clinically meaningful benefit. A 1 mg SC Q4W dosage regimen is favored over a placebo in improving PGA scores at 16 weeks. Further, Fasinumab use may increase the risk of adverse events, including Joint-replacement surgery and Adjudicated Arthropathy.
conclusionAlthough select fasinumab regimens demonstrated statistically significant reductions in WOMAC pain, function, and PGA scores at 16 weeks, confidence interval overlaps with conservative MCID thresholds limit certainty regarding clinically meaningful efficacy. Additionally, treatment may carry increased risks, including adjudicated arthropathy.In addition, osteoarthritis is a chronic disease, and these short-term efficacy outcomes may not reflect long-term treatment effectiveness. These findings are based on trials assessed as having an overall low risk of bias. Further research is needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.