Changes in Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Therapy-Resistant Migraine during Treatment with Erenumab in an Ambulatory Care Setting.

Migraine preventive treatment with the CGRP-receptor monoclonal antibody Erenumab can positively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disease-associated disability. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a valuable additional datapoint to real-world evidence covering how treatment affects physical, mental, and social domains of patients' lives. In this real-world, single-center retrospective observational cohort study, we analyzed clinical performance indicators and PROMs for migraine patients who failed at least four other preventive medications and received Erenumab over the course of one year. Endpoints were the average monthly migraine days as well as PROMs including the MIDAS, EQ-5D-VAS and PROMIS-29. Data were collected digitally via the software heartbeat ONE in an ambulatory care setting as part of the clinical routine. A total of 145 patients treated with Erenumab provided data for 12 months. After 12 months, the median number of monthly migraine days decreased from 9 to 7 days. A clinically relevant reduction in migraine days by ≥30% was reported by 40% of the patients. The migraine-specific MIDAS score, the EQ-5D-VAS measuring the overall health status and all PROMIS domains, except sleep disturbance, changed significantly, reflecting a positive disease progression. This study highlights how patients with a treatment-resistant migraine in an outpatient setting benefit from a preventive treatment with Erenumab. A decrease in migraine days and an increase in HRQoL was maintained over one year. It also underscores the significance of collecting real-world evidence, including PROMs, as an integral component of the healthcare cycle, as such data can reveal additional factors relevant to treatment.

Safety and efficacy of prednisone versus placebo in short-term prevention of episodic cluster headache: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prednisone is commonly used for initial short-term therapy of episodic cluster headaches before preventive medication such as verapamil becomes effective, but this strategy has not been tested in large randomised trials. We aimed to access the safety and efficacy of this treatment approach. METHODS: This study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in ten specialised headache centres in Germany. Patients with episodic cluster headaches who were aged between 18 and 65 years and within a current pain episode for not more than 30 days, received 100 mg oral prednisone for 5 days followed by tapering of 20 mg every 3 days, or matching placebo (17 days total exposure). All patients received oral verapamil for long-term prevention, starting with 40 mg three times daily and increasing to 120 mg three times daily by day 19; patients then continued with verapamil 120 mg throughout the study. Randomisation was computer-generated at a 1:1 ratio by use of an interactive web-response system, with stratification according to age, sex, and participating site. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were unaware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the mean number of attacks within the first week of treatment with prednisone compared with placebo. An attack was defined as a unilateral headache with moderate-to-severe intensity of at least five on a numerical rating scale. All efficacy and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which consisted of all patients who had been randomly assigned to a trial group and received at least one dose of prednisone or placebo. The study was stopped early due to slow recruitment and expired funding. The study was registered with EudraCT (2011-006204-13) and with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004716). FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2013, and Jan 11, 2018, 118 patients were enrolled in the study. Two patients dropped out immediately and 116 patients were randomly assigned (57 patients to prednisone and 59 patients to placebo); 109 patients were included in the mITT analysis (53 patients assigned to prednisone and 56 patients assigned to placebo). Participants in the prednisone group had a mean of 7·1 (SD 6·5) attacks within the first week compared with 9·5 (6·0) attacks in the placebo group (difference -2·4 attacks, 95% CI -4·8 to -0·03; p=0·002). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the placebo group (inguinal hernia and severe deterioration of cluster headache). A total of 270 adverse events were observed: in the prednisone group, 37 (71%) of 52 patients reported 135 adverse events (most common were headache, palpitations, dizziness, and nausea) and in the placebo group, 39 (71%) of 55 patients had 135 adverse events (most common were nausea, dizziness, and headache). INTERPRETATION: Oral prednisone was an effective short-term preventive therapy in our population of patients with episodic cluster headache. Our findings support the use of prednisone as a first-line treatment in parallel to the up-titration of verapamil, although the efficacy of prednisone alongside other long-term prevention requires additional investigation. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry for Education and Research.

Tolerability, Safety, and Quality of Life with Tapentadol Prolonged Release (PR) Compared with Oxycodone/Naloxone PR in Patients with Severe Chronic Low Back Pain with a Neuropathic Component: A Randomized, Controlled, Open-label, Phase 3b/4 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tolerability, safety, and quality-of-life outcomes in non-opioid-pretreated patients with severe chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component receiving tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR. METHODS: Eligible patients (average pain intensity [numerical rating scale] ≥ 6; painDETECT positive/unclear ratings) were randomized to twice-daily tapentadol PR 50 mg or oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg. After a 21-day titration (maximum twice-daily doses: tapentadol PR 250 mg, or oxycodone/naloxone PR 40 mg/20 mg plus oxycodone PR 10 mg), target doses were continued for 9 weeks. Change in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) total score from baseline to final evaluation was a primary endpoint. RESULTS: For the primary tolerability-related endpoint, the 97.5% exact repeated confidence interval for tapentadol PR minus oxycodone/naloxone PR for the PAC-SYM total score was [-0.259, 0.121], showing noninferiority (upper limit < 0.7). Incidences of constipation and vomiting were significantly lower with tapentadol PR than oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.045). Confirmatory superiority based on formal noninferiority was shown for the primary effectiveness endpoint (change from baseline to final evaluation in pain intensity) for tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (presented separately). Improvements in the Short Form-12 physical component summary and EuroQol-5 Dimension health status index and health state assessment were significantly greater with tapentadol PR vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR (P ≤ 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Tapentadol PR had a minimal impact on bowel function (noninferior to oxycodone/naloxone PR) and, along with superior effectiveness (presented separately), was associated with significantly lower incidences of constipation and vomiting and significant improvements in quality-of-life measures vs. oxycodone/naloxone PR.

Evaluation of guideline-adherent treatment in cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: Several treatment guidelines exist for cluster headache. However, it is not yet known how many cluster headache patients are treated according to these guidelines. METHODS: We enrolled 434 cluster headache patients with confirmed diagnosis referred to two tertiary pain centers. The history of treatment was registered and analyzed according to the treatment guidelines of the European Federation of Neurological Societies. RESULTS: Regarding acute attack treatment, 62.1% of the episodic and 71.0% of the chronic cluster headache patients were treated according to the guidelines. The efficacy rate was above 92% in both groups. Regarding prophylactic treatment, 31.3% of the episodic and 50.9% of the chronic cluster headache patients were treated according to the guidelines. The efficacy rate was 92.8% for episodic and 70.9% for chronic cluster headache. CONCLUSION: The rate of guideline-adherent treatment in cluster headache is about 70% for acute treatment and about 35% for prophylactic treatment. The efficacy of this treatment is significantly higher than the efficacy of non-guideline-adherent treatment.

New Formulation of Sustained Release Naloxone Can Reverse Opioid Induced Constipation Without Compromising the Desired Opioid Effects.

UNLABELLED: An international double-blind randomized placebo controlled study evaluated the safety and efficacy of four doses of a new sustained release naloxone capsule to treat Opioid Induced Constipation (OIC). METHODS: Forty patients taking opioids for noncancer related pain, and experiencing OIC, were randomized into 4 cohorts of 10 patients. A multiple ascending dose design was used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg naloxone sustained release (NSR) capsules vs placebo. Drug was given once-daily for 3 weeks followed by twice daily (bid) dosing between weeks 4 and 6. RESULTS: The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events was highest in the placebo group. The incidence of adverse events among the four active treatment groups were similar. There were no serious adverse events. The number of severe events was low overall but highest in the placebo group. Significant improvements were seen in Spontaneous Bowel Movements with 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg NSR capsules. Mean change in SBMs from baseline of 2.21 (P = 0.052), 2.37 (P = 0.032); 4.11 (P = 0.0005); 5.19 (<0.0001) was noted with NSR 2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg, respectively, when taken once daily, compared with 1.38 (P = 0.2) for patients on placebo therapy. No changes in subjective or objective measures of opioid withdrawal as measured by the Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale or Clinical Opioid Withdrawal Scale were observed. There was no increase in patient reported pain as measured daily using a visual analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: This Phase II study has shown that using a new sustained release formulation to deliver oral naloxone to the colon allows successful treatment of OIC without comprising the desired opioid effects.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of lubiprostone for opioid-induced constipation in chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, phase 3 trial evaluated oral lubiprostone for constipation associated with non-methadone opioids in patients with chronic noncancer-related pain. METHODS: Adults with opioid-induced constipation (OIC; <3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs] per week) were randomized 1:1 to double-blind lubiprostone 24 µg or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the overall SBM response rate. Responders had at least moderate response (≥1 SBM improvement over baseline frequency) in all treatment weeks with available observed data, as well as full response (≥3 SBMs per week) for at least 9 of the 12 treatment weeks. RESULTS: In total, 431 patients were randomized; 212 each received lubiprostone and placebo, and 7 were not treated. Overall, the SBM response rate was significantly higher for patients treated with lubiprostone vs. placebo (27.1 vs. 18.9%, respectively; P=0.030). Overall mean change from baseline in SBM frequency was significantly greater with lubiprostone vs. placebo (3.2 vs. 2.4, respectively; P=0.001). The median time to first SBM was significantly shorter with lubiprostone vs. placebo (23.5 vs. 37.7 h, respectively; P=0.004). Compared with placebo, the patients treated with lubiprostone exhibited significant improvements in straining (P=0.004), stool consistency (P<0.001), and constipation severity (P=0.010). No significant differences were observed in quality-of-life measures or the use of rescue medication; however, the percentage of patients who used rescue medication was consistently lower in the lubiprostone group than in the placebo group at months 1 (34.9 vs. 37.7%), 2 (23.4 vs. 26.6%), and 3 (20.5 vs. 22.0%). Adverse events (AEs) >5% were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain (lubiprostone: 11.3, 9.9, 4.2, and 7.1%, respectively; placebo, 3.8, 4.7, 5.2, and 0%, respectively). None of the serious AEs (lubiprostone, 3.3%; placebo, 2.8%) were related to lubiprostone. CONCLUSIONS: Lubiprostone significantly improved symptoms of OIC and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (Study SB-767905/012) of alvimopan for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with non-cancer pain.

UNLABELLED: Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are common with opioid medication, and constipation affects ∼40% of patients. Such symptoms considerably impair patients' quality of life. Alvimopan is an orally administered, systemically available, peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist approved in the US for short-term, in-hospital management of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection. This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted as part of a recently discontinued clinical program, in which alvimopan was being developed for opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Patients (N = 518) receiving opioids for non-cancer pain were randomized to receive alvimopan .5 mg once daily, alvimopan .5 mg twice daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs; bowel movements with no laxative use in the previous 24 hours) per week over the treatment period and an average increase from baseline of ≥ 1 SBM per week. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the alvimopan .5 mg twice-daily group met the primary endpoint compared with placebo (72% versus 48%, P < .001). Treatment with alvimopan twice daily improved a number of other symptoms compared with placebo and reduced the requirement for rescue laxative use. The opioid-induced bowel dysfunction Symptoms Improvement Scale (SIS) responder rate was 40.4% in the alvimopan .5 mg twice daily group, versus 18.6% with placebo (P < .001). In general, alvimopan .5 mg once daily produced qualitatively similar but numerically smaller responses than twice-daily treatment. Active treatment did not increase the requirement for opioid medication or increase average pain intensity scores. Over the 12-week treatment period, alvimopan appeared to be well tolerated. PERSPECTIVE: These results demonstrate the potential for a PAM-OR antagonist to improve the symptoms of OIC without antagonizing opioid analgesia.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of terguride in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome: results of a twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of terguride, a partial dopamine agonist, in patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). METHODS: In a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, 99 patients were randomized at a ratio of 2 to 1 to receive terguride or placebo. Over 21 days, the dosage was titrated to a maximum daily dose of 3 mg of terguride or placebo, and this fixed dosage was continued over 9 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the intensity of pain (100-mm visual analog scale). Secondary efficacy variables included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score, the tender point score (TPS), and the Hamilton Depression Scale (HDS) score. During the study, patients were evaluated for the presence of cervical spine stenosis by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RESULTS: No significant differences in the change in pain intensity, FIQ score, TPS, or HDS score between baseline and 12 weeks were observed in the terguride group as compared with the placebo group. Cervical spine stenosis was detected in 22% of the patients. Only patients with cervical spine stenosis responded to terguride treatment. FIQ scores improved significantly (per-protocol analysis), and pain intensity, the TPS score, and the HDS score showed a trend toward improvement in the terguride group as compared with the placebo group. Terguride treatment was safe. Only those adverse events already known to be side effects of terguride were observed. Premature termination of the study in patients receiving terguride (26%) occurred predominantly during up-titration and in the absence of comedication for treatment of nausea. CONCLUSION: Terguride treatment did not improve pain, the FIQ score, the TPS, or the HDS score in the total study population. However, a subgroup of patients with cervical spine stenosis seemed to benefit from terguride treatment.

Cistus incanus (CYSTUS052) for treating patients with infection of the upper respiratory tract. A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical study.

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study we aimed to investigate the clinical effect of a Cistus extract (CYSTUS052) in 160 patients with infections of the upper respiratory tract. The extract contains a high percentage of highly polymeric polyphenols. In cell culture and in a mouse model it exerts antiviral and antimicrobial activities. Principal active constituents of the genus Cistus are polyphenolic compounds. Plant-derived polyphenols have been shown to be strong antioxidants with potential health benefits. Various reports have appeared on the antiviral and antibacterial potential, including several reports describing the antiviral activity of polyphenols against influenza virus. Clinical studies on the effectiveness of Cistus incanus are scarce. Only one controlled application observation study demonstrated the effectiveness of a Cistus extract. The present randomised, placebo-controlled clinical study was designed to compare the symptom scores in patients with common cold treated either with CYSTUS052 or with placebo. A score of subjective symptoms decreased significantly over the course of treatment with Cistus, whereas treatment with placebo resulted in a less distinct decrease of symptoms. Among the inflammatory markers investigated, the C-reactive protein was mostly affected by Cistus and decreased significantly in the treatment group.

Survey to evaluate diagnosis and management of headache in primary care: Headache Management Pattern programme.

OBJECTIVE: The Headache Management Pattern (HMP) programme was designed to evaluate the current clinical situation regarding the diagnosis, treatment and referral of headache in a European primary care setting. DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 705 GPs (from Germany, Portugal and Belgium), who regularly treated migraine patients, completed a questionnaire relating to four different case scenarios described in terms of symptoms, signs and medical history. Each GP completed clinical decision-trees which were created following IHS diagnostic criteria and published treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Of those questioned, 90% accurately diagnosed a new migraine case and 54% prescribed early intervention with a triptan. However, 23.7% prescribed an NSAID, despite a past history of failed headache relief, and 7.2% indicated that they would refer their patients to a specialist. In the case of a patient whose migraine was deteriorating, 55% of GPs counselled early intervention with a triptan. For chronic migraine sufferers, 42.6% of GPs chose to refer them to a specialist, whilst about one-third made appropriate adjustments to the patient's treatment. The final case, tension-type headache, proved the most difficult scenario to assess, with only 26% of those questioned reaching an adequate diagnosis. Between-country differences in clinical practice may result from local reimbursement policy, treatment guidelines, and different healthcare systems/facilities (e.g., access to specialised care)--all of which could influence the results obtained. CONCLUSIONS: A questionnaire such as the HMP programme inherently has limited depth, and the sampling procedure (GPs with triptan knowledge from three countries) needs to be considered when interpreting the results. Nevertheless, the survey provides important information relating to the management of headache in primary care, highlighting the need for both continuing medical education and also improved referral to specialist care.

Alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist for the treatment of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in subjects taking opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist, in subjects with non-cancer pain and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD), and to identify at least one treatment regimen that improves OBD. Following a 2-week baseline period, 522 subjects reporting <3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week (with >or=25% accompanied by a sensation of incomplete evacuation, straining, or lumpy hard stools), requiring analgesia equivalent to >or=30 mg oral morphine/day were randomized to alvimopan 0.5mg twice daily (BID), 1mg once daily (QD), 1mg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks. Compared with placebo, there was a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean weekly SBM frequency over the initial 3 weeks of treatment (primary endpoint) with alvimopan 0.5mg BID (+1.71 mean SBMs/week), alvimopan 1mg QD (+1.64) and alvimopan 1mg BID (+2.52); P<0.001 for all comparisons. Increased SBM frequency and additional treatment effects, including improvements in symptoms such as straining, stool consistency, incomplete evacuation, abdominal bloating/discomfort, and decreased appetite, were sustained over 6 weeks. The most frequently reported adverse events were abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea, occurring more frequently in the higher dosage groups. The alvimopan 0.5mg BID regimen demonstrated the best benefit-to-risk profile for managing OBD with alvimopan in this study population, with a side effect profile similar to that of placebo. There was no evidence of opioid analgesia antagonism. Competitive peripheral antagonism of opioids with alvimopan can restore GI function and relieve OBD without compromising analgesia.

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of oral eletriptan and ergotamine plus caffeine (Cafergot) in the acute treatment of migraine: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison.

The 5-HT(1B/1D/1F) agonist eletriptan, at an oral dose of 80 mg, has been shown to be more efficacious than sumatriptan 100 mg and placebo in the treatment of migraine attacks with or without aura. Another commonly prescribed oral treatment for migraine attacks is Cafergot (1 mg ergotamine tartrate with 100 mg caffeine per tablet). The efficacy, tolerability and safety of 40- and 80-mg doses of eletriptan and 2 tablets of Cafergot were compared in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial involving 733 migraine patients. Patients recorded symptoms at baseline (before treatment) and 1, 2, 4 and 24 h after dosing. Headache intensity was assessed on a 4-point scale (3 = severe pain, 2 = moderate pain, 1 = mild pain, 0 = no pain). Significantly more eletriptan-treated patients (80 mg, 68%; 40 mg, 54%) than Cafergot-treated patients (33%; p < 0.001) reported headache response (improvement from moderate-to-severe to mild or no pain) at 2 h. Substantially more eletriptan recipients reported no pain (80 mg, 38%; 40 mg, 28%; Cafergot, 10%; placebo, 5%; p < 0.001). Eletriptan headache response rates at 1 h were significantly higher (80 mg, 39%; 40 mg, 29%; Cafergot, 13%; placebo, 13%; p < 0.002 for each comparison). Both doses of eletriptan were significantly more effective than Cafergot in reducing nausea (p < 0.0001), photophobia (80 mg, p < 0.0001; 40 mg, p < 0.002), phonophobia (80 mg, p < 0.0001; 40 mg, p < 0.003) and functional impairment (p < or = 0.001) at 2 h. Adverse events were generally mild or moderate and transient. This randomised trial shows that oral eletriptan is more efficacious in the acute treatment of migraine than oral Cafergot and is well tolerated.