Participants assessed average chronic prostatitis pain in the last 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no chronic prostatitis pain) to 10 (chronic prostatitis pain as bad as you can imagine). The average daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Higher score indicated severe pain.

Restricted Full Analysis Set (rFAS): all randomized participants who received at least 1 treatment dose, completed at least 4 diary days during 7 day prior randomization, and had baseline, post-randomization primary efficacy data for 4 or more days within assessment window or for 2 or more consecutive days for diary endpoints derived from 3-day diary. Overall number of participants analyzed=participants evaluable for this measure; number analyzed=participants evaluable at specified timepoint.

Participants assessed average chronic prostatitis pain in the last 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no chronic prostatitis pain) to 10 (chronic prostatitis pain as bad as you can imagine). The average daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Higher score indicated severe pain.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Participants assessed worst chronic prostatitis pain in the last 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no chronic prostatitis pain) to 10 (chronic prostatitis pain as bad as you can imagine). The worst daily pain score was calculated as the mean of the scores over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Higher score indicated severe pain.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' evaluable participants at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

CPSI is a 9-item questionnaire, contains 3 modules that measure pain (question 1 to 4), urinary symptoms (question 5 and 6) and global quality of life (question 7 to 9). Total scores range from 0 to 21 on the pain module, 0 to 10 on the urinary symptoms and 0 to 12 on the quality of life module. NIH-CPSI total score (9-items) range from 0 to 43. Higher total and module scores indicate greater symptom severity and bother.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'number analyzed' signifies evaluable participants at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

The micturition frequency per 24 hours was calculated from the sum of voluntary voids divided by the diary period over which they were collected.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Nocturnal micturition was calculated as the sum of voluntary voids that occur during a night's sleep, divided by the number of nights over which this was collected.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number anlayzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Mean voided volume per micturition was calculated as the total urine volume voided (resulting from a toilet [voluntary] void) during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of toilet voids over which this occurred.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Subject assessed discrete urinary events: voluntary toilet voids (with volume voided), and urgency episodes. For each urinary event, subjects assessed the level of pain intensity on a 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine). Mean pain severity per urinary event (toilet void, urgency episode) was calculated as the mean of all pain severities over the last 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Higher score indicated severe pain.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Urinary urgency episodes per 24 hours was calculated as the sum of any urgency episodes occurring during the diary period when this was measured, divided by the number of days over which they were recorded.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Mean sleep disturbance score was calculated from the sleep disturbance experienced over the previous night. The average sleep disturbance score per night was determined from calculating an average of all sleep disturbance scores in the 7 days prior to each assessment time point. Participants answered: "Over the past 24 hours, how much did the symptoms that you associate with your chronic prostatitis disturb your sleep?" Participants responded on a 5-points rating scale, ranged from 0 = not at all, 1 = a little, 2 = somewhat, 3 = very, and 4 = extremely. Higher score indicated greater sleep disturbance.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

The participants were first asked whether they had ejaculated during the past 24 hours. If yes, they recorded how much pain related to ejaculation they had experienced during the past 24 hours by choosing the appropriate number an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 (no ejaculatory pain at all) to 10 (ejaculatory pain as bad as you can imagine). Higher score indicated greater pain. Mean pain score associated with ejaculation was calculated from all ejaculation pain scores recorded in the 7 days prior to each assessment time point.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

The GRA questionnaire is a 7-point symmetric scale, which measured patient-reported overall response to treatment compared to baseline with the following possible responses: 1= markedly worse, 2 = moderately worse, 3= slightly worse, 4= no change, 5 = slightly improved,6 = moderately improved, and 7 = markedly improved. Participants who reported either of the latter 2 categories were defined as treatment responders. Participants were asked "Compared to when you began this trial, how would you rate your chronic prostatitis symptoms now?". Participants responded on 7-point symmetric scale ranged 1 to 7, where higher score indicated improvement.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed) signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Participant global satisfaction was assessed using Patient Reported Treatment Impact (PRTI) which was a self-administered questionnaire containing four items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. Participant's answered the question "Overall, how satisfied are you with the drug that you received since you entered this trial?". Participants provided response on a 5-point scale where 1=extremely dissatisfied, 2=dissatisfied, 3=neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 4=satisfied and 5=extremely satisfied. Higher score indicated greater satisfaction, preference or willingness to use study medication. Number of participants with each response is reported.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Participant global preference is assessed using PRTI which is a self-administered questionnaire containing four items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. Participant reported previous treatment under following categories: lifestyle interventions, physical therapies, training programs, drug treatment - taken by mouth, surgery or other prostate procedure (e.g, microwave treatment), and no treatment. Participant preference was assessed using following categories: definitely prefer study medication, slightly prefer study medication, no preference, slightly prefer previous treatment, and definitely prefer previous treatment. Number of participants under each of the categories is reported. For previous treatment, a single participant may be represented in more than 1 category.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, ''overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Participant willingness to re-use study medication was assessed using PRTI which is a self-administered questionnaire containing four items to assess participant satisfaction, previous treatment, preference and willingness to continue using the study medication. Participant willingness to re-use study medication was assessed using following categories: definitely want to re-use, might want to re-use, not sure, might not want to re-use, definitely would not want to re-use.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

In the event of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of chronic prostatitis, participants were allowed to take acetaminophen/paracetamol 500 mg, tablets or capsules as rescue medication.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

In the event of inadequate pain relief or worsening symptoms of chronic prostatitis, participants were allowed to take acetaminophen/paracetamol 500 mg, tablets or capsules as rescue medication.

Analysis was performed on rFAS. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Serum NGF level was measured using Immunoaffinity High Performance Liquid Chromatography - Tandem Mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS).

FAS: all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment and completed at least 4 diary days during 7 days prior to randomization. Here, 'overall number of participants analyzed' signifies participants evaluable for this measure and 'number analyzed' participants evaluable at specified time point for each arm. Urine NGF levels not analyzed as reliable assay for measurement in urine could not be identified.

An AE was any untoward medical occurrence in a participant who received study medication without regard to possibility of causal relationship. An SAE was an AE resulting in any of the following outcomes or deemed significant for any other reason: death; initial or prolonged inpatient hospitalization; life-threatening experience (immediate risk of dying); persistent or significant disability/incapacity; congenital anomaly. Treatment-emergent are events between first dose of study medication and up to Week 16 that were absent before treatment or that worsened relative to pretreatment state. AEs included SAEs as well as non-serious AEs which occurred during the trial.

Safety analysis set included all randomized participants who had received at least 1 dose of study treatment.

A neurological examination assessed the strength of groups of muscles of the head and neck, upper limbs and lower limbs, deep tendon reflexes and sensation (tactile, vibration, joint position sense and pin prick) of index fingers and great toes.

Safety analysis set included all randomized participants who had received at least 1 dose of study treatment.

PVR volume, an objective assessment of the amount of urine left in the bladder after normal urination and was monitored whether the active treatment had an adverse effect on lower urinary tract voiding function. The PVR volume was assessed using trans-abdominal ultrasound (e.g., bladder scanner) with the participant in a supine position immediately after voluntary urination.

Safety analysis set included all randomized participants who had received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Here, 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.

Human serum ADA samples were analyzed for the presence or absence of anti-tanezumab antibodies by using the semi quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).

Safety analysis set included all randomized participants who had received at least 1 dose of study treatment. Here 'number analyzed' signifies those participants who were evaluable at specified time point for each arm, respectively.