Medication overuse in a subgroup analysis of phase 3 placebo-controlled studies of galcanezumab in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Acute medication overuse is prevalent in patients with migraine. METHODS: In three phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, patients with episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) or chronic migraine (REGAIN) were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab 120 or 240 mg for 3 or 6 months. This subgroup analysis evaluated mean changes in the number of monthly migraine headache days in each treatment among patients with versus without baseline acute medication overuse via mixing modelling with repeated measures. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with baseline medication overuse in placebo, galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg groups, respectively, were 19.4%, 17.3%, and 19.3% for EVOLVE-1/-2 (pooled; post hoc), and 63.4%, 64.3%, and 64.1% for REGAIN (a priori). Both galcanezumab doses demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo for overall least squares mean change in monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse in both the episodic and chronic migraine studies (p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, both galcanezumab doses reduced average monthly medication overuse rates compared to placebo (p < 0.001) in both patient populations with medication overuse at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab appears to be effective for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in patients who overuse acute medications.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02614183, NCT02614196, and NCT02614261.

Functional impairment and disability among patients with migraine: evaluation of galcanezumab in a long-term, open-label study.

PURPOSE: Migraine can negatively impact patient functioning and quality of life. Here, we report the effects of galcanezumab (GMB), a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in migraine. METHODS: CGAJ was a Phase III, randomized, open-label study (12-month open-label and 4-month post-treatment follow-up) in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. Patients aged 18-65 years with diagnosis of migraine (≥ 4 migraine headache days per month) as defined by International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)-3 beta guidelines were included in the study. Patients were randomized 1:1 with subcutaneous GMB 120 mg (with a loading dose of 240 mg) or GMB 240 mg given once monthly for 12 months. Changes from baseline in PRO measures such as Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were randomized to each galcanezumab dose group. Mean (SD) baseline MSQ total scores were 53.85 (20.34) [GMB 120 mg] and 53.69 (18.79) [GMB 240 mg]. For MIDAS, mean (SD) total scores were 45.77 (42.06) [GMB 120 mg] and 53.96 (61.24) [GMB 240 mg]. Within-group mean improvement from baseline on MSQ and MIDAS total scores and all individual item/domain scores were statistically significant for both GMB dose groups, at all-time points during the treatment phase (p < 0.001). For MSQ domain scores, greatest improvement was observed in the Role function-restrictive (RF-R) domain (overall least squares (LS) mean change ± SE: 31.55 ± 1.20 [GMB 120 mg] and 33.40 ± 1.16 [GMB 240 mg]). For MIDAS, the overall LS mean change ± SE from baseline across the entire 12-month treatment phase in total scores were: -33.58 ± 2.11 (GMB 120 mg) and -32.67 ± 2.04 (GMB 240 mg). CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab was associated with statistically significant changes from baseline in the PRO measures across the entire 12-month treatment period. These results indicate improved health-related quality of life and decreased disability among patients treated with galcanezumab.

Shift from high-frequency to low-frequency episodic migraine in patients treated with Galcanezumab: results from two global randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with episodic migraine (EM) with a higher-frequency of migraine headache days (HFEM: 8-14 migraine headache days/month) have a greater disease burden and a higher risk of progressing to chronic migraine (CM) with associated acute treatment overuse versus those with low-frequency EM (LFEM: 4-7 migraine headache days/month). In this post hoc analysis, we assessed the proportions of patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM and to very low-frequency EM (VLFEM: 0-3 migraine headache days/month) status following treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo. METHODS: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 were double-blind, Phase 3 studies in patients with EM. Patients (18-65 years) were randomized (2:1:1) to subcutaneous monthly injections of placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg (240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg, for up to 6 months. Data were pooled and endpoints were change from baseline in number of migraine headache days/month and patients who shifted from HFEM to LFEM or VLFEM status. Impact of change in HFEM status on migraine headache days/month, quality of life and disability was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 66% (1176/1773) patients from EVOLVE studies had HFEM status at baseline and were included in this analysis; placebo: 592, galcanezumab 120 mg: 294 and galcanezumab 240 mg: 290. At each month, both doses of galcanezumab resulted in a higher proportion of patients who shifted to 0-7 monthly headache days/month (VLFEM or LFEM status). Patients who shifted from HFEM at baseline to VLFEM status at Month 3, a relatively larger proportion of patients on galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo remained at VLFEM status at Months 4-6; Months 4-5 for galcanezumab 240 mg versus placebo. Among the galcanezumab-treated patients who did-not-shift or shifted to LFEM or VLFEM status for ≥3 consecutive months until the end of the study, patients who shifted from HFEM to VLFEM status experienced the largest reduction in migraine headache days/month and the largest clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning (MSQ-RFR) and disability (MIDAS). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFEM, treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg and 240 mg) significantly reduced migraine headache days/month, maintained remission status at subsequent months until the end of the study, and improved patients' quality of life versus placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: EVOLVE-1, NCT02614183 ; EVOLVE-2, NCT02614196 .

Effect of galcanezumab on severity and symptoms of migraine in phase 3 trials in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated a significant reduction in monthly migraine headache days compared with placebo. Here, we analyze data from 3 randomized clinical trials (2 episodic trials [EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2] and 1 chronic trial [REGAIN]), to examine if galcanezumab also alleviates the severity and symptoms of migraine. METHODS: The episodic migraine trials were 6-month, double-blind studies in patients with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days). The chronic migraine trial was a 3-month, double-blind study in patients with chronic migraine (≥ 15 headache days per month, where ≥ 8 met criteria for migraine). Patients (18-65 years) were randomized to placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg with a 240-mg loading dose or 240 mg. Patients recorded headache characteristics, duration, severity, and presence of associated symptoms with each headache. The outcomes analyzed were changes from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days with nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia, aura, and prodromal symptoms other than aura. Additional outcomes analyzed included the number of moderate-to-severe monthly migraine headache days, number of severe migraine headache days, and mean severity of remaining migraine headache days. Change from baseline in the proportion of days with nausea and/or vomiting and the proportion of days with photophobia and phonophobia among the remaining monthly migraine headache days were also analyzed. RESULTS: Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in reducing the frequency of migraine headache days with associated symptoms of migraine such as nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia, and prodromal symptoms. Galcanezumab reduced the frequency of migraine headache days with aura in the episodic migraine studies. There was a significant reduction in the proportion of remaining migraine headache days with nausea and/or vomiting for the episodic and chronic migraine studies, and with photophobia and phonophobia for the episodic migraine studies. Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly moderate-to-severe migraine headache days and the overall and monthly severe migraine headache days. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab reduces the frequency of migraine headache days and can alleviate potentially disabling non-pain symptoms on days when migraine is present in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT02614183 (EVOLVE-1), registered 25 November 2015; NCT, NCT02614196 , (EVOLVE-2), registered 25 November 2015; NCT, NCT02614261 (REGAIN), registered 25 November 2015.

Evaluation of injection-site-related adverse events with galcanezumab: a post hoc analysis of phase 3 studies in participants with migraine.

BACKGROUND: Injection-site reactions have been reported with biologicals. In this post hoc analysis of Phase 3 studies in participants with migraine, we provide a comprehensive overview and detailed summary of injection-site reaction with galcanezumab. METHODS: Data were obtained from two randomised clinical studies in participants with episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2), one randomised study in participants with chronic migraine (REGAIN) and one open-label study (Study CGAJ) in participants with episodic or chronic migraine. The injection-site reactions were measured for two different cohorts: 1) six-month double-blind treatment phase in the EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 studies and three-month double-blind treatment phase in the REGAIN study, where participants received placebo and galcanezumab (placebo-controlled analysis set); 2) three month double-blind (Month 0 to Month 3; 1:1:placebo:galcanezumab) + 9 months open-label extension phase (Month 3 to Month 12) of REGAIN and twelve month open-label phase of Study CGAJ, where participants received only galcanezumab (galcanezumab exposure analysis set). RESULTS: A total of 477 participants in the placebo-controlled analysis set (galcanezumab 240 mg, 166/730 [22.7%]; galcanezumab 120 mg, 128/705 [18.2%]; placebo, 183/1451 [12.6%]) reported at least one injection-site reaction. Most of the injection-site reactions were reported as injection-site pain, unspecified injection-site reaction, injection-site erythema, and injection-site pruritus. The incidence of injection-site pain was highest among all reported injection-site reactions and were reported with similar frequency by participants receiving galcanezumab (galcanezumab 120 mg, 10.1%; galcanezumab 240 mg, 11.6%) and placebo (9.5%) and was the most common injection-site reaction reported within 60 min of injection (~ 86% of participants). The frequency of unspecified injection-site reaction, injection-site erythema and injection-site pruritus was significantly (P < 0.001) higher in participant receiving galcanezumab versus placebo. In the galcanezumab exposure analysis set participants received up to 12 doses and the frequency of injection-site reactions reported for both doses combined was 21.8%. The reporting of injection-site reactions did not increase with the number of doses received. No ISR-related serious adverse events were reported in both the placebo-controlled and galcanezumab exposure analysis sets. CONCLUSIONS: The most common adverse event of galcanezumab is injection-site reactions. However, these events were generally mild-to-moderate in severity, non-serious, resolved spontaneously, and discontinuations due to injection-site reactions were low (1%).

Safety and tolerability of monthly galcanezumab injections in patients with migraine: integrated results from migraine clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated a significant reduction in monthly migraine headache days in phase 2 and 3 trials. In these analyses, we aimed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of galcanezumab compared with placebo for prevention of episodic or chronic migraine. METHODS: Data were integrated from three double-blind clinical studies for the up to 6-month galcanezumab exposure group (N = 1435), and from five clinical studies for the up to 1-year all-galcanezumab exposure group (N = 2276). Patients received a monthly 120 mg subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab (with a 240 mg loading dose in month 1), 240 mg galcanezumab, or placebo. Outcomes measured were treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and discontinuation due to AEs (DCAEs). Laboratory results, vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG), suicidal ideation and behavior results were evaluated. RESULTS: TEAEs that occurred more frequently in galcanezumab-treated patients included injection site pain, injection site reactions excluding pain, constipation, vertigo, and pruritus. The proportion of DCAEs among galcanezumab-treated patients ranged between 1.8 and 3.0%, and differed from placebo group for galcanezumab 240 mg (P < 0.05). Fewer than 2.0% of patients in either galcanezumab dose-group compared with 1.0% of placebo-treated patients reported a SAE. There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab and placebo in laboratory measures, vital signs including blood pressure, ECGs, cardiovascular-related AEs, or suicidal ideation and behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile for up to 1 year of treatment for the prevention of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials CGAB = NCT02163993, EVOLVE-1 = NCT02614183, EVOLVE-2 = NCT02614196, REGAIN = NCT02614261, and CGAJ = NCT02614287. All were first posted on 25 November 2015, except CGAB posted on 16 June 2014, and before enrolling the first patient.

Correction to: Safety and tolerability of monthly galcanezumab injections in patients with migraine: integrated results from migraine clinical studies.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors noticed an error in the values for 'Hypersensitivity SMQ' and 'Rash' in Table 7.

Effect of age on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab treatment in adult patients with migraine: results from six phase 2 and phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Migraine clinical profile may change with age, making it necessary to verify that migraine treatments are equally safe and effective in older patients. These analyses evaluated the effects of patient age on the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine. METHODS: Analyses included efficacy data from three double-blind phase 3 clinical trials: two 6-month studies in episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2: N = 1773) and one 3-month study in chronic migraine (REGAIN:N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. Safety and PK data included additional phase 2 and phase 3 trials for a larger sample size of patients > 60 years (range = 18-65 for all studies). Subgroup analyses assessed efficacy measures, adverse event (AE) occurrence, and cardiovascular measurement changes by patient age group. Galcanezumab PK were evaluated using a population analysis approach, where age was examined as a potential covariate on apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution (V/F) of galcanezumab. RESULTS: Numbers of baseline monthly migraine headache days were similar across age groups. There were no statistically significant treatment-by-age group interactions for any efficacy measures, except in episodic migraine studies where older patients appeared to have a larger reduction than younger patients in the number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use. Age (18-65) had a minimal effect on CL/F, and no effect on V/F. Galcanezumab-treated patients ≥60 years experienced no clinically meaningful increases in blood pressure and no increased frequency in treatment-emergent AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) overall, or cardiovascular SAEs, compared to age-matched placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Age (up to 65 years) does not affect efficacy in migraine prevention and has no clinically meaningful influence on galcanezumab PK to warrant dose adjustment. Furthermore, older galcanezumab-treated patients experienced no increases in frequency of AEs or increases in blood pressure compared with age-matched placebo-treated patients. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EVOLVE-1 (NCT02614183, registered 23 November 2015), EVOLVE-2 (NCT02614196, 23 November 2015), REGAIN (NCT02614261, 23 November 2015), ART-01 (NCT01625988, 20 June 2012, ), I5Q-MC-CGAB (NCT02163993, 12 June 2014, ), I5Q-MC-CGAJ (NCT02614287, 23 November 2015, ), all retrospectively registered.

Effect of Galcanezumab Following Treatment Cessation in Patients With Migraine: Results From 2 Randomized Phase 3 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab after treatment cessation in randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, migraine prevention studies (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2). BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is indicated for migraine prevention in adults. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine were enrolled into EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2, which randomized 858 and 915 patients, respectively, to galcanezumab 120 mg (an initial 240-mg loading dose), galcanezumab 240 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously once monthly for 6 months. After treatment completion or discontinuation, patients entered a 4-month posttreatment period. Efficacy and safety from the posttreatment periods are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 740 patients (EVOLVE-1) and 830 (EVOLVE-2) patients entered the posttreatment periods, about 95% and 96% of patients, respectively, completed. In EVOLVE-1, change from pre-randomization baseline in monthly migraine headache days decreased over the posttreatment period from (mean [SE]) 5.2 (0.4) days (Month 6) to 4.1 (0.4) days (Month 10) for 120 mg and from 5.3 (0.4) days (Month 6) to 3.8 (0.4) days (Month 10) for 240 mg, and was stable for placebo (3.4 [0.3] days [Month 6] to 3.3 [0.3] days [Month 10]); differences between each galcanezumab dose group and placebo were statistically significant at each month, except for galcanezumab 240 mg at Month 10 (120 mg vs placebo: P < .001 Months 1-6, P = .007 Month 7, P = .044 Month 8, P = .016 Month 9, and P = .042 Month 10; 240 mg vs placebo: P < .001 Months 1-7, P = .015 Month 8, P = .021 Month 9, and P = .238 Month 10). EVOLVE-2 showed similar results. In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups and placebo for time-to-first loss of 50% response. During the posttreatment periods, 1.6% (EVOLVE-1) and 2.3% (EVOLVE-2) of patients initiated migraine preventive treatments. At Month 10, quality of life among galcanezumab-treated patients was similar to those taking placebo. The most common posttreatment emergent adverse event was upper respiratory tract infections. There were no discontinuations due to adverse events during the posttreatment periods. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab treatment effects were reduced during the posttreatment periods, but did not return to baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events after galcanezumab cessation.

Correction to: Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2).

After publication of our article [1] we were notified that the data presented in the upper row of Fig. 7 was inadvertently the least square mean change from baseline (standard error) at Month 6 rather than the overall average of Month 3 and Month 6. The figure legend and discussion of the data in the text were and are correct. The error was only in the upper row of Fig. 7. The legend for Fig. 7 did not require revision.

Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2).

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) have a greater disease burden than those with low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM). Acute treatment overuse increases the risk of migraine chronification in patients with HFEM. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is effective for migraine prevention with a favorable safety profile. Here, we investigate whether there are differences in galcanezumab efficacy in patients with LFEM or with HFEM. METHODS: Data were pooled from two double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials; EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2. Patients were 18-65 years old, experienced 4-14 monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) for ≥1 year prior, with onset at < 50 years of age. Migraine headaches were tracked via electronic patient-reported outcome system and randomization was stratified by low (LFEM; 4-7 monthly MHDs) or high (HFEM; 8-14 monthly MHDs) frequency. Subgroup analysis compared the HFEM and LFEM subgroups with a linear or generalized linear mixed model repeated measures approach. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat patients (N = 1773) had a mean age of 41.3 years, were mostly white (75%), female (85%), and 66% of patients had HFEM. In both the LFEM and HFEM subgroups, the overall (Months 1-6) and monthly changes from baseline in monthly MHDs and monthly MHDs with acute medication use compared with placebo were statistically significantly reduced for galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg. Galcanezumab (120-mg and 240-mg) significantly decreased the overall and monthly MHDs with nausea and/or vomiting, and with photophobia and phonophobia versus placebo in patients with LFEM or HFEM. In both subgroups, the mean overall (Months 1-6) and monthly percentages of patients with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly MHDs from baseline were statistically significantly greater in patients receiving either dose of galcanezumab versus placebo. Galcanezumab (120-mg and 240-mg) significantly improved the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function-restrictive domain score as well as the Migraine Disability Assessment total score versus placebo for patients with LFEM or HFEM. There were no significant subgroup-by-treatment interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was as effective in patients with HFEM as in those with LFEM. Associated symptoms, quality of life, and disability were similarly improved in patients with HFEM or LFEM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02614183 , NCT02614196 .

A phase 3, long-term, open-label safety study of Galcanezumab in patients with migraine.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to the calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated in previous Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical studies (≤6-month of treatment) a reduction in the number of migraine headache days and improved patients' functioning. This study evaluated the safety and tolerability, as well as the effectiveness of galcanezumab for up to 12 months of treatment in patients with migraine. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, 18 to 65 years old, that were not exposed previously to galcanezumab, were randomized to receive galcanezumab 120 mg or 240 mg, administered subcutaneously once monthly for a year. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and adverse events (AEs) leading to study discontinuation. Laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and suicidality were also analyzed. Additionally, overall change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days, functioning, and disability were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty five patients were randomized to each galcanezumab dose group. The majority of patients were female (> 80%) and on average were 42 years old with 10.6 migraine headache days per month at baseline. 77.8% of the patients completed the open-label treatment phase, 3.7% of patients experienced an SAE, and 4.8% discontinued due to AEs. TEAEs with a frequency ≥ 10% of patients in either dose group were injection site pain, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, injection site reaction, back pain, and sinusitis. Laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiograms did not show anyclinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab dosesOverall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days over 12 months for the galcanezumab dose groups were 5.6 (120 mg) and 6.5 (240 mg). Level of functioning was improved and headache-related disability was reduced in both dose groups. CONCLUSION: Twelve months of treatment with self-administered injections of galcanezumab was safe and associated with a reduction in the number of monthly migraine headache days. Safety and tolerability of the 2 galcanezumab dosing regimens were comparable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02614287 , posted November 15, 2015. These data were previously presented as a poster at the International Headache Congress 2017: PO-01-184, Late-Breaking Abstracts of the 2017 International Headache Congress. (2017). Cephalalgia, 37(1_suppl), 319-374.

Preventive effects of galcanezumab in adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine are persistent: data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN studies.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of effect following treatment with galcanezumab compared to placebo in adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine was evaluated. METHODS: In 2 similarly designed studies of patients with episodic migraine (6 months) and 1 study of patients with chronic migraine (3 months), patients randomized in a 1:1:2 ratio received a subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg/month (after an initial loading dose of 240 mg) or 240 mg/month or placebo. Maintenance of effect during the double-blind phase was evaluated based on a comparison of the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients with maintenance of 30, 50, 75, and 100% response (defined as ≥30, ≥50, ≥75, and 100% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine headache days [MHD]) at an individual patient level. Logistic regression analyses were used for between treatment comparisons. RESULTS: A total of 1773 adult patients with episodic migraine (n = 444 for galcanezumab 120 mg; n = 435 for galcanezumab 240 mg; n = 894 for placebo for 2 studies pooled) and 1113 patients with chronic migraine (n = 278 for galcanezumab 120 mg; n = 277 for galcanezumab 240 mg; n = 558 for placebo) were evaluated. In patients with episodic migraine, ≥50% response was maintained in 41.5 and 41.1% of galcanezumab-treated patients (120 mg and 240 mg, respectively) for ≥3 consecutive months (until patient's endpoint) and 19.0 and 20.5%, respectively, for 6 consecutive months and was significantly greater than the 21.4 and 8.0% of placebo-treated patients at ≥3 and 6 months consecutively (P < 0.001). Approximately 6% of galcanezumab-treated patients maintained ≥75% response all 6 months versus 2% of placebo-treated patients. Few galcanezumab-treated patients maintained 100% response. In patients with chronic migraine, 29% of galcanezumab-treated patients maintained ≥30% response all 3 months compared to 16% of placebo patients while ≥50% response was maintained in 16.8 and 14.6% of galcanezumab-treated patients (120 mg and 240 mg) and was greater than placebo (6.3%; p < 0.001). Few patients maintained ≥75% response. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with galcanezumab 120 mg or 240 mg demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful persistence of effect in patients with episodic migraine (≥3 and 6 consecutive months) and in patients with chronic migraine (for 3 months). STUDY IDENTIFICATION AND TRIAL REGISTRATION: Study Identification: EVOLVE-1 (I5Q-MC-CGAG); EVOLVE-2 (I5Q-MC-CGAH); REGAIN (I5Q-MC-CGAI) TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; NCT02614183 (EVOLVE-1); NCT02614196 (EVOLVE-2); NCT02614261 (REGAIN).

Incidence of tardive dyskinesia in older adult patients treated with olanzapine or conventional antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: The risk of persistent tardive dyskinesia (TD) was compared in patients with acute psychosis or agitation aged 55 years or older who were treated with olanzapine (OLZ) or conventional antipsychotic (CNV) drug therapy. METHODS: Patients without TD were randomized to treatment with OLZ (2.5-20 mg/d; n = 150) or CNV (dosed per label; n = 143). Following a 6-week drug tapering/initiation period, patients without TD were treated with OLZ or CNV for up to 1 year. The a priori defined primary outcome end point was persistent TD defined as Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) scores = 2 on at least 2 items or ≥3 on at least 1 item (items 1-7) lasting at least for 1 month (Criterion A). Post hoc analyses assessed persistent TD meeting the criterion of moderate severity defined as AIMS score ≥3 on at least 1 item persisting for 1 month (Criterion B) and probable TD defined as elevated AIMS scores (Criterion A or B) not persisting for 1 month. Treatment groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curve with log-rank exact test. RESULTS: On average, patients were 78 years of age; the predominant diagnosis was dementia (76.7% in the OLZ group and 82.5% in the CNV group). Approximately, 40.6% of patients in the CNV group received haloperidol. No significant difference in time to developing persistent TD was observed during treatment with OLZ or CNV (cumulative incidence: OLZ, 2.5% [95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.5-7.0]; CNV, 5.5% [95% CI: 2.1-11.6], P = .193). The exposure-adjusted event rates per 100 person-years were not significantly different between treatment groups: OLZ (2.7) and CNV (6.3; ratio: 0.420; 95% CI: 0.068-1.969). Post hoc analyses revealed a significantly lower risk of at least moderately severe persistent TD persisting for 1 month (P = .012) and probable TD not persisting for 1 month (Criterion A, P = .030; Criterion B, P = .048) in OLZ-treated patients. For those patients without significant extrapyramidal symptoms at baseline, significantly more patients in the CNV treatment group developed treatment-emergent parkinsonism than for patients in the OLZ treatment group (CNV: 70%, 35 of 50 patients; OLZ 44%, 25 of 57 patients; P = .011). No significant difference between the groups was observed for treatment-emergent akathisia (CNV: 6%, 7 of 117 patients; OLZ: 10%, 13 of 130 patients; P = .351). CONCLUSION: The cumulative incidence of persistent TD was low and the risk of persistent TD did not differ significantly among predominantly older adult patients having dementia with acute psychosis or agitation treated with OLZ or CNV.

A short-term, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized withdrawal study of a metabotropic glutamate 2/3 receptor agonist using an electronic patient-reported outcome device in patients with schizophrenia.

This 6-week, multicenter, randomized withdrawal, placebo-controlled trial sought to determine whether symptoms of physical dependence occur after abrupt cessation of pomaglumetad methionil (LY2140023 monohydrate), a metabotropic glutamate 2/3 receptor agonist, in patients with schizophrenia. Eligible outpatients, 18 to 65 years old who required a modification or initiation of antipsychotic medication received 4 weeks of pomaglumetad methionil during open-label treatment and then were randomized, double-blind, to continue pomaglumetad methionil or receive placebo for 2 weeks. The primary outcome compared results of the 3-day moving mean of the total score on the Discontinuation Symptom Checklist-Modified Rickels for pomaglumetad methionil-treated patients with those on placebo during the randomized withdrawal phase. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) device was used daily to record these results. During the withdrawal phase, 103 patients were randomized, and 98 patients completed the trial. There was no statistically significant evidence of withdrawal symptoms associated with placebo compared with pomaglumetad methionil continuation as measured by Discontinuation Symptom Checklist-Modified Rickels (P = 0.170). The results are supported by secondary analyses with the clinician-rated, Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale Revised, which showed no statistically significant differences between treatment groups. Using the ePRO device, 82.5% of the patients achieved 75% to 100% of compliance. No discontinuations due to worsening of schizophrenia, serious adverse events, deaths, or seizures were reported during either phase of the study. These findings suggest that there is no evidence of withdrawal symptoms associated with the abrupt discontinuation of pomaglumetad methionil and that an ePRO device can be successfully used in a multicenter schizophrenia trial.

The longitudinal interplay between negative and positive symptom trajectories in patients under antipsychotic treatment: a post hoc analysis of data from a randomized, 1-year pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a highly heterogeneous disorder with positive and negative symptoms being characteristic manifestations of the disease. While these two symptom domains are usually construed as distinct and orthogonal, little is known about the longitudinal pattern of negative symptoms and their linkage with the positive symptoms. This study assessed the temporal interplay between these two symptom domains and evaluated whether the improvements in these symptoms were inversely correlated or independent with each other. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, 1-year pragmatic trial of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder who were treated with first- and second-generation antipsychotics in the usual clinical settings. Data from all treatment groups were pooled resulting in 399 patients with complete data on both the negative and positive subscale scores from the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Individual-based growth mixture modeling combined with interplay matrix was used to identify the latent trajectory patterns in terms of both the negative and positive symptoms. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationship between the changes of these two symptom domains within each combined trajectory pattern. RESULTS: We identified four distinct negative symptom trajectories and three positive symptom trajectories. The trajectory matrix formed 11 combined trajectory patterns, which evidenced that negative and positive symptom trajectories moved generally in parallel. Correlation coefficients for changes in negative and positive symptom subscale scores were positive and statistically significant (P < 0.05). Overall, the combined trajectories indicated three major distinct patterns: (1) dramatic and sustained early improvement in both negative and positive symptoms (n = 70, 18%), (2) mild and sustained improvement in negative and positive symptoms (n = 237, 59%), and (3) no improvement in either negative or positive symptoms (n = 82, 21%). CONCLUSIONS: This study of symptom trajectories over 1 year shows that changes in negative and positive symptoms were neither inversely nor independently related with each other. The positive association between these two symptom domains supports the notion that different symptom domains in schizophrenia may depend on each other through a unified upstream pathological disease process.

Construct validity of 2 measures to assess reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation from patients' and clinicians' perspectives in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the specific reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation or continuation from patients' or clinicians' perspectives. This study aimed to assess the construct validity of 2 new measures of the Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation/Continuation (RAD): RAD-I (a structured interview assessing the patient's perspective) and RAD-Q (a questionnaire assessing the clinician's perspective). METHODS: Data were used from a 12-week antipsychotic trial of schizophrenia patients in which the RAD was administered at study entry and at study completion (or discontinuation). Construct validity was assessed through comparisons of RAD responses, clinicians' responses to a standard patient disposition form identifying reasons for patient's study discontinuation, and several standard psychiatric measures. Percent agreement quantified the correspondence between patient and clinician scores. RESULTS: Patients indicating lack of improvement/worsening of positive symptoms as a 'somewhat' to 'primary' reason for medication discontinuation had statistically significantly less improvement in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale positive score than patients not reporting these as a reason (concurrent validity). Similar results were observed for the RAD negative symptom, functional, social support, and adherence items, whereas the mood and cognitive items were not significantly associated with change scores on standard psychiatric measures. Responses to the RAD were also weakly associated with variables that theoretically should not be related to them (divergent validity). Level of agreement between the clinician- and patient-rated RAD scores was high (60%-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Initial validation of the RAD suggests that the instruments are valid tools for gathering detailed information regarding reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation from patients' and clinicians' perspectives.

Long-term healthcare costs and functional outcomes associated with lack of remission in schizophrenia: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long-term outcomes for patients with schizophrenia who fail to achieve symptomatic remission. This post-hoc analysis of a 3-year study compared the costs of mental health services and functional outcomes between individuals with schizophrenia who met or did not meet cross-sectional symptom remission at study enrollment. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis used data from a large, 3-year prospective, non-interventional observational study of individuals treated for schizophrenia in the United States conducted between July 1997 and September 2003. At study enrollment, individuals were classified as non-remitted or remitted using the Schizophrenia Working Group Definition of symptom remission (8 core symptoms rated as mild or less). Mental health service use was measured using medical records. Costs were based on the sites' medical information systems. Functional outcomes were measured with multiple patient-reported measures and the clinician-rated Quality of Life Scale (QLS). Symptoms were measured using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Outcomes for non-remitted and remitted patients were compared over time using mixed effects models for repeated measures or generalized estimating equations after adjusting for multiple baseline characteristics. RESULTS: At enrollment, most of the 2,284 study participants (76.1%) did not meet remission criteria. Non-remitted patients had significantly higher PANSS total scores at baseline, a lower likelihood of being Caucasian, a higher likelihood of hospitalization in the previous year, and a greater likelihood of a substance use diagnosis (all p < 0.05). Total mental health costs were significantly higher for non-remitted patients over the 3-year study (p = 0.008). Non-remitted patients were significantly more likely to be victims of crime, exhibit violent behavior, require emergency services, and lack paid employment during the 3-year study (all p < 0.05). Non-remitted patients also had significantly lower scores on the QLS, SF-12 Mental Component Summary Score, and Global Assessment of Functioning during the 3-year study. CONCLUSIONS: In this post-hoc analysis of a 3-year prospective observational study, the failure to achieve symptomatic remission at enrollment was associated with higher subsequent healthcare costs and worse functional outcomes. Further examination of outcomes for schizophrenia patients who fail to achieve remission at initial assessment by their subsequent clinical status is warranted.