Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine attacks during the prodrome: a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist that is approved for acute treatment of migraine. The prodrome is the earliest phase of a migraine attack and is characterised by non-aura symptoms that precede headache onset. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 100 mg compared with placebo for the acute treatment of migraine when administered during the prodrome. METHODS: This PRODROME trial was a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of ubrogepant 100 mg conducted at 75 research centres and headache clinics in the USA. Eligible participants were adults aged 18-75 years who had at least a 1-year history of migraine with or without aura and a history of two to eight migraine attacks per month with moderate to severe headache in each of the 3 months before screening. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either receive placebo to treat the first qualifying prodrome event and ubrogepant 100 mg to treat the second qualifying prodrome event or to receive ubrogepant 100 mg to treat the first qualifying prodrome event and placebo to treat the second qualifying prodrome event. An automated interactive web-response system used permuted blocks of four to manage randomisation. All people giving interventions and assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment during the study. People doing data analysis, which occurred after study completion, were not masked to group assignment. During the double-blind treatment period, each participant was instructed to orally take two tablets of the study drug at the onset of each qualifying prodrome event. The primary endpoint was absence of moderate or severe intensity headache within 24 h after study-drug dose; efficacy analyses were conducted with the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as all randomly assigned participants with at least one headache assessment within 24 h after taking the study drug during the treatment period. The safety population included all treated participants who took at least one administration of study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04492020). FINDINGS: Between Aug 21, 2020, and April 19, 2022, 518 participants were randomly assigned to double-blind crossover treatment. The safety population included 480 participants and the mITT population included 477 participants; 421 (88%) of 480 participants were female and 59 (12%) were male. Absence of moderate or severe headache within 24 h after a dose occurred after 190 (46%) of 418 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with ubrogepant and after 121 (29%) of 423 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with placebo (odds ratio 2·09, 95% CI 1·63-2·69; p<0·0001). Adverse events that occurred within 48 h after study-drug administration were reported after 77 (17%) of 456 qualifying prodrome events that had been treated with ubrogepant and after 55 (12%) of 462 events that had been treated with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Ubrogepant was effective and well tolerated for the treatment of migraine attacks when taken during the prodrome. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137). FINDINGS: Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]). INTERPRETATION: Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant. FUNDING: Allergan (now AbbVie).

An improved score-type confidence interval for stratified risk differences involving rare events.

A stratified analysis of the differences in proportions has been widely employed in epidemiological research, social sciences, and drug development. It provides a useful framework for combining data across strata to produce a common effect. However, for rare events with incidence rates close to zero, popular confidence intervals for risk differences in a stratified analysis may not have appropriate coverage probabilities that approach the nominal confidence levels and the algorithms may fail to produce a valid confidence interval because of zero events in both the arms of a stratum. The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of certain methods commonly employed to construct confidence intervals for stratified risk differences when the response probabilities are close to a boundary value of zero or one. Additionally, we propose an improved stratified Miettinen-Nurminen confidence interval that exhibits a superior performance over standard methods while avoiding computational difficulties involving rare events. The proposed method can also be employed when the response probabilities are close to one.

Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute migraine treatment. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and side-effect profile of ubrogepant. We assigned adults with migraine, with or without aura, in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive an initial dose of placebo, ubrogepant at a dose of 50 mg, or ubrogepant at a dose of 100 mg for treatment of a single migraine attack, with the option to take a second dose. The coprimary efficacy end points were freedom from pain at 2 hours after the initial dose and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours. Secondary end points included pain relief (at 2 hours), sustained pain relief (from 2 to 24 hours), sustained freedom from pain (from 2 to 24 hours), and absence of symptoms associated with migraine (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours. RESULTS: A total of 1672 participants were enrolled; 559 were assigned to receive placebo, 556 to receive 50 mg of ubrogepant, and 557 to receive 100 mg of ubrogepant. The percentage of participants who had freedom from pain at 2 hours was 11.8% in the placebo group, 19.2% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002, adjusted for multiplicity, for the comparison with placebo), and 21.2% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (P<0.001). The percentage of participants who had freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours was 27.8% in the placebo group, 38.6% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002), and 37.7% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (P = 0.002). Adverse events within 48 hours after the initial or optional second dose were reported in 12.8% of participants in the placebo group, in 9.4% in the 50-mg ubrogepant group, and in 16.3% in the 100-mg ubrogepant group. The most common adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth (reported in 0.4 to 4.1%); these events were more frequent in the 100-mg ubrogepant group (reported in 2.1 to 4.1%). Serious adverse events reported within 30 days in the ubrogepant groups included appendicitis, spontaneous abortion, pericardial effusion, and seizure; none of the events occurred within 48 hours after the dose. CONCLUSIONS: A higher percentage of participants who received ubrogepant than of those who received placebo had freedom from pain and absence of the most bothersome symptom at 2 hours after the dose. The most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth. Further trials are needed to determine the durability and safety of ubrogepant for acute migraine treatment and to compare it with other drugs for migraine. (Funded by Allergan; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020.).

Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1-4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week. RESULTS: We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1-4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from -3.1 to -3.9 across atogepant doses vs -1.6 for placebo (p < 0.0001). For weeks 5-8 and 9-12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from -3.7 to -4.2 for atogepant vs -2.9 for placebo (p ≤ 0.012) and -4.2 to -4.4 for atogepant vs -3.0 for placebo (p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from -0.77 to -1.03 for atogepant vs -0.29 with placebo (p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo (p ≤ 0.0071). CONCLUSION: Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059.

Multiple imputation analysis of Miettinen-Nurminen interval for difference in proportions.

The standard multiple imputation technique focuses on parameter estimation and assumes that the parameter estimator is asymptotically normally distributed with a Wald-type confidence interval for the parameter of interest. On the other hand, the Miettinen-Nurminen (MN) method for difference in proportions (Miettinen O, Nurminen M. Stat Med. 1985;4:213-226) constructs the confidence interval using an asymptotic score method and hence is not directly amenable to the standard multiple imputation technique. We propose a multiple imputation analysis that is applicable to the MN method for difference in proportions. We use simulation studies to compare the proposed method with that of Li, Mehrotra and Barnard (LMB), which is based on effective sample sizes (Li X, Mehrotra DV, Barnard J. Stat Med. 2006;25:2107-2124). We show that both methods produce confidence intervals with adequate coverage, while the proposed method produces slightly shorter confidence intervals than the LMB method. In addition, the proposed method is evaluable for all datasets, while the LMB method cannot be used when the imputed cell counts are zero across imputations for a treatment group.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories. METHODS: ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom. RESULTS: Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Sample size calculation for logrank test and prediction of number of events over time.

We review and compare existing methods for sample size calculation based on the logrank statistic and recommend the method of Lakatos for its accuracy and flexibility in allowing time-dependent rates of event, loss to follow-up, and noncompliance. We extend the Lakatos method to allow a general follow-up scheme, to handle non-inferiority tests, and to predict the number of events over calendar time. We apply the Lakatos method to the simple nonproportional hazard situation of delayed treatment effect to facilitate the comparison of different weighting methods and to evaluate the performance of the maximum combination tests. We use simulation studies to confirm the validity of the Lakatos method and its extensions.

Multiple imputation score tests and an application to Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistics.

The standard multiple imputation technique focuses on parameter estimation. In this study, we describe a method for conducting score tests following multiple imputation. As an important application, we use the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test as a score test and compare the proposed multiple imputation method with a method based on the Wilson-Hilferty transformation of the CMH statistic. We show that the proposed multiple imputation method preserves the nominal significance level for three types of alternative hypotheses, whereas that based on the Wilson-Hilferty transformation inflates type I error for the "row means differ" and "general association" alternative hypotheses. Moreover, we find that this type I error inflation worsens as the amount of missing data increases.

Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetic Interaction of Ubrogepant Coadministered With Sumatriptan and of the Safety of Ubrogepant With Triptans.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction and the safety and tolerability when ubrogepant and sumatriptan are coadministered in a Phase 1 study in healthy participants, and to inform the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant alone and in combination with triptans in Phase 3 trials in participants with migraine. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide is a potent vasodilatory neurotransmitter believed to play a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Ubrogepant (UBRELVY™) is a potent and selective antagonist of the human calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan is a serotonin receptor agonist and the most commonly used triptan for the acute treatment of migraine. Ubrogepant could be prescribed with triptans. DESIGN: The Phase 1 study was a single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover, single-dose, pharmacokinetic interaction study, where participants received each of 3 oral treatments with a 7-day washout period between treatments: single dose of ubrogepant 100 mg, single dose of sumatriptan 100 mg, and ubrogepant 100 mg plus sumatriptan 100 mg. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a model-independent approach. The ACHIEVE I and II trials were 2 multicenter, single-attack, randomized, Phase 3 trials in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura. Participants had the option to take a second dose of study medication or rescue medication to treat a nonresponding migraine or a migraine recurrence from 2 to 48 hours after the initial dose of study medication. Rescue medication options included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, anti-emetics, or triptans. Treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated up to 30 days after the last dose in the Phase 1 and Phase 3 studies. RESULTS: Ubrogepant median time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (3 hours [range: 1-5 hours] vs 1.5 hours [range: 1-4 hours]), mean maximum plasma concentration was reduced by 24% (coefficient of variation: 37.4%) when ubrogepant was coadministered with sumatriptan (n = 29) compared with ubrogepant administered alone (N = 30). No significant effect was observed on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of ubrogepant. Sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration showed no significant change when sumatriptan was coadministered with ubrogepant (n = 29), but the sumatriptan time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (1 hour [range: 0.5-5 hours] vs 3 hours [range: 0.5-6 hours]. No treatment-emergent adverse events were reported with the coadministration of ubrogepant 100 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg in the Phase 1 study. The pooled safety data from ACHIEVE trials (N = 1938) showed similar rates of treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events between participants who took ubrogepant alone and participants who took ubrogepant and a triptan as a rescue medication (14.9% [53/355] vs 12.8% [5/39] in the ubrogepant 100 mg treatment group, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although there were slight alterations in ubrogepant pharmacokinetic parameters when coadministered with sumatriptan, such changes are expected to have minimal clinical relevance, especially because no changes were seen in sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration when coadministered with ubrogepant. Coadministration of ubrogepant with sumatriptan was well tolerated in healthy participants in the Phase 1 study, and coadministration of ubrogepant with triptans was well tolerated in participants with migraine in the Phase 3 trials. No new safety concerns for ubrogepant were identified across all trials.

Long-Term Safety Evaluation of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Phase 3, Randomized, 52-Week Extension Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene-related receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy of ubrogepant was demonstrated in 2 phase 3 trials in which a significant improvement was observed in migraine headache pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and ability to function. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open-label, 52-week extension trial. Adults with migraine with or without aura entered the trial after completing one of 2 phase 3 lead-in trials and were re-randomized 1:1:1 to usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg. Randomization to ubrogepant dose was blinded. Those randomized to usual care continued to treat migraine attacks with their own medication. The usual care arm was included in this trial to capture background rates of hepatic laboratory parameters and contextualize hepatic safety assessments. Safety and tolerability were the primary outcome measures. The safety population for the ubrogepant arms included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. All cases of alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were adjudicated by an independent panel of liver experts who were blinded to dose. RESULTS: The safety population included 1230 participants (404 in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 409 in the ubrogepant 100-mg group, and 417 in the usual care group). Participants were on average 42 years of age, 90% (1106/1230) female and 85% (1043/1230) white, with an average BMI of 30 kg/m2 . Throughout the trial, 21,454 migraine attacks were treated with 31,968 doses of ubrogepant. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 268/404 (66%) participants receiving ubrogepant 50 mg and 297/409 (73%) receiving ubrogepant 100 mg. The most commonly reported TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection (<12%); findings were similar across dose groups. Treatment-related TEAEs were reported by 42/404 (10%) participants in the ubrogepant 50-mg group and 43/409 (11%) in the ubrogepant 100-mg group. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 9/404 (2%) participants in the ubrogepant 50-mg group and 12/409 (3%) participants in the ubrogepant 100-mg group. Twenty cases of ALT/AST levels of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were reported and reviewed by an independent clinical adjudication committee of liver experts. There were no cases of Hy's Law. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term intermittent use of ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg given as 1 or 2 doses per attack for the acute treatment of migraine was safe and well tolerated, as indicated by a low incidence of treatment-related TEAEs and SAEs and discontinuations due to adverse events in this 1-year trial.

Cardiac risk assessment based on early Phase I data and PK-QTc analysis is concordant with the outcome of thorough QTc trials: an assessment based on eleven drug candidates.

Cardiac safety assessment is a key regulatory requirement for almost all new drugs. Until recently, one evaluation aspect was via a specifically designated, expensive, and resource intensive thorough QTc study, and a by-time-point analysis using an intersection-union test (IUT). ICH E14 Q&A (R3) (http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E14/E14_Q_As_R3__Step4.pdf) allows for analysis of the PK-QTc relationship using early Phase I data to assess QTc liability. In this paper, we compared the cardiac risk assessment based on the early Phase I analysis with that from a thorough QTc study across eleven drug candidate programs, and demonstrate that the conclusions are largely the same. The early Phase I analysis is based upon a linear mixed effect model with known covariance structure (Dosne et al. in Stat Med 36(24):3844-3857, 2017). The treatment effect was evaluated at the supratherapeutic Cmax as observed in the thorough QTc study using a non-parametric bootstrap analysis to generate 90% confidence intervals for the treatment effect, and implementation of the standardized methodology in R and SAS software yielded consistent results. The risk assessment based on the concentration-response analysis on the early Phase I data was concordant with that based on the standard analysis of the thorough QTc study for nine out of the eleven drug candidates. This retrospective analysis is consistent with and supportive of the conclusion of a previous prospective analysis by Darpo et al. (Clin Pharmacol Ther 97(4):326-335, 2015) to evaluate whether C-QTc analysis can detect QTc effects in a small study with healthy subjects.

Effect of Ubrogepant vs Placebo on Pain and the Most Bothersome Associated Symptom in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: The ACHIEVE II Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist under investigation for acute treatment of migraine. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant compared with placebo for acute treatment of a single migraine attack. Design, Setting, and Participants: Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack, clinical trial (ACHIEVE II) conducted in the United States (99 primary care and research clinics; August 26, 2016-February 26, 2018). Participants were adults with migraine with or without aura experiencing 2 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Interventions: Ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 562), ubrogepant 25 mg (n = 561), or placebo (n = 563) for a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the participant-designated most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (among photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours after taking the medication. Results: Among 1686 randomized participants, 1465 received study treatment (safety population; mean age, 41.5 years; 90% female); 1355 of 1465 (92.5%) were evaluable for efficacy. Pain freedom at 2 hours was reported by 101 of 464 participants (21.8%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 90 of 435 (20.7%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 65 of 456 (14.3%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 7.5%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.4%; 95% CI, 1.5%-11.5%; P = .03). Absence of the most bothersome associated symptom at 2 hours was reported by 180 of 463 participants (38.9%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 148 of 434 (34.1%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 125 of 456 (27.4%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 11.5%; 95% CI, 5.4%-17.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.6%-12.7%; P = .07). The most common adverse events within 48 hours of any dose were nausea (50 mg, 10 of 488 [2.0%]; 25 mg, 12 of 478 [2.5%]; and placebo, 10 of 499 [2.0%]) and dizziness (50 mg, 7 of 488 [1.4%]; 25 mg, 10 of 478 [2.1%]; placebo, 8 of 499 [1.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with migraine, acute treatment with ubrogepant compared with placebo led to significantly greater rates of pain freedom at 2 hours with 50-mg and 25-mg doses, and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours only with the 50-mg dose. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of ubrogepant against other acute treatments for migraine and to evaluate the long-term safety of ubrogepant among unselected patient populations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02867709.

Evaluation of the long-term safety and tolerability of cariprazine in patients with schizophrenia: results from a 1-year open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: Cariprazine, a dopamine D3/D2 partial agonist atypical antipsychotic with preferential binding to D3 receptors, is approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder. The efficacy and safety of cariprazine was established in three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 6-week trials in patients with acute exacerbation of schizophrenia. This 53-week study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of cariprazine in patients with schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, flexible-dose study of cariprazine 3-9 mg/d in adults with schizophrenia. Participants included new patients and patients who had completed one of two phase III lead-in studies (NCT01104766, NCT01104779). Eligible patients entered a no-drug screening period of up to 1 week followed by 48 weeks of flexibly dosed, open-label cariprazine treatment (3-9 mg/d) and 4 weeks of safety follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 586 patients received open-label cariprazine treatment, ~39% of whom completed the study. No unexpected safety issues or deaths were reported. The most common (≥10%) adverse events (AEs) observed were akathisia (16%), headache (13%), insomnia (13%), and weight gain (10%). Serious AEs occurred in 59 (10.1%) patients, and 73 (12.5%) patients discontinued the study due to AEs during open-label treatment. Mean changes in metabolic, hepatic, and cardiovascular parameters were not considered clinically relevant. Mean body weight increased by 1.5 kg during the study, prolactin levels decreased slightly, and measures of efficacy remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term cariprazine treatment at doses up to 9 mg/d appeared to be generally safe and well tolerated in patients with schizophrenia.

The safety and tolerability of cariprazine in long-term treatment of schizophrenia: a post hoc pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a chronic and debilitating neuropsychiatric disorder that often requires long-term pharmacotherapy to manage symptoms and prevent relapse. Cariprazine is a potent dopamine D3 and D2 receptor partial agonist that is FDA-approved in the US for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in adults; the recommended dose range is 1.5-6 mg/d. METHODS: To further characterize the long-term safety of cariprazine, data from two 48-week open-label, flexible-dose extension studies were pooled for post hoc analyses. Outcomes were evaluated in the pooled safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose of cariprazine during an open-label extension period); findings were summarized using descriptive statistics for the overall cariprazine group and in modal daily dose groups (1.5-3, 4.5-6, and 9 mg/d). RESULTS: Of the 679 patients in the overall cariprazine safety population, 40.1% completed the study. The only adverse events (AEs) leading to discontinuation of ≥2% of patients in any dose group were akathisia, worsening of schizophrenia, and psychotic disorder. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) of akathisia, insomnia, weight increased, and headache were reported in ≥10% of the overall population. Mean prolactin levels decreased in all dose groups (overall, -15.4 ng/mL). Clinically insignificant changes in aminotransferase levels and alkaline phosphatase were observed; no dose-response relationship was observed across groups. Mean total (-5.3 mg/dL), low-density lipoprotein (-3.5 mg/dL), and high-density lipoprotein (-0.8 mg/dL) cholesterol levels decreased; no dose-response relationship was observed for metabolic parameters. Mean change in body weight was 1.58 kg; body weight increase and decrease ≥7% occurred in 27% and 11% of patients, respectively. Mean changes in cardiovascular parameters, including blood pressure and pulse, were generally not considered clinically significant. EPS-related TEAEs that occurred in ≥5% of patients were akathisia, tremor, restlessness, and extrapyramidal disorder. CONCLUSION: In these post hoc pooled analyses of data from 2 long-term open-label studies, treatment with cariprazine was generally safe and well tolerated. Results support the safety and tolerability of cariprazine within the FDA-recommended dose range of 1.5-6 mg/d for schizophrenia. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01104792, NCT00839852.

Global improvement with cariprazine in the treatment of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia: A pooled post hoc analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Global rating scale measures are useful for assessing the clinical relevance of patient change. Cariprazine, a dopamine D3 and D2 receptor partial agonist, is FDA-approved for the adult treatment of acute manic/mixed episodes of bipolar I disorder and schizophrenia. Post hoc evaluations of Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) scores from the cariprazine pivotal trials in both indications were conducted. METHODS: Data from 3 bipolar mania and 3 schizophrenia trials were pooled by indication (bipolar disorder = 1033; schizophrenia = 1466). Cariprazine- and placebo-treated patients were categorised by baseline CGI-S scores; the proportion of patients who improved from more severe categories at baseline to less severe categories at end-point was evaluated using a logistic regression model. Correlations between Young Mania Rating Scale and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score changes and category shifts were also evaluated. RESULTS: In both disease states, more cariprazine- than placebo-treated patients had improved CGI-S scores at end-point; more placebo-treated patients had worse end-point scores. More cariprazine- vs placebo-treated patients shifted from the extremely/severely ill to mildly ill/better category (bipolar disorder = 55% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.1; P = .09; schizophrenia = 42% vs 18%, OR = 3.4, P<.01). ORs was statistically significant in favour of cariprazine in shifts from marked and moderate illness to borderline/normal in both indications (P < .05). Correlations between rating scale improvement and category shift were greatest in patients with extreme/severe baseline illness for bipolar disorder (-0.853) and schizophrenia (-0.677). CONCLUSIONS: Post hoc analyses showed that more cariprazine- than placebo-treated patients with bipolar mania or schizophrenia had statistically significant and clinically meaningful CGI-S improvement.

On logistic regression analysis of dichotomized responses.

We study the properties of treatment effect estimate in terms of odds ratio at the study end point from logistic regression model adjusting for the baseline value when the underlying continuous repeated measurements follow a multivariate normal distribution. Compared with the analysis that does not adjust for the baseline value, the adjusted analysis produces a larger treatment effect as well as a larger standard error. However, the increase in standard error is more than offset by the increase in treatment effect so that the adjusted analysis is more powerful than the unadjusted analysis for detecting the treatment effect. On the other hand, the true adjusted odds ratio implied by the normal distribution of the underlying continuous variable is a function of the baseline value and hence is unlikely to be able to be adequately represented by a single value of adjusted odds ratio from the logistic regression model. In contrast, the risk difference function derived from the logistic regression model provides a reasonable approximation to the true risk difference function implied by the normal distribution of the underlying continuous variable over the range of the baseline distribution. We show that different metrics of treatment effect have similar statistical power when evaluated at the baseline mean. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Graphical approaches using a Bonferroni mixture of weighted Simes tests.

Graphical approaches to multiple testing procedures are very flexible and easy to communicate with non-statisticians. The availability of the R package gMCP further propelled the application of graphical approaches in randomized clinical trials. Bretz et al. (Biometrical Journal 2011; 53:894-913) introduced a class of nonparametric testing procedures based on a Bonferroni mixture of weighted Simes tests for intersection hypotheses. Such approaches are extremely useful when the conditions for the Simes test are known to hold for hypotheses within certain subsets but may not hold for hypotheses across subsets. We describe the calculation of adjusted p-values for such approaches, which is currently not available in the gMCP package. We also optimize the generation of the weights for each intersection hypothesis in the closure of a graph-based multiple testing procedure, which can dramatically reduce the computing time for simulation-based power calculations. We show the validity of the Simes test for comparing several treatments with a control, performing noninferiority and superiority tests, or testing the treatment effect in an overall and a subpopulation for the normal, binary, count, and time-to-event data. The proposed method is illustrated using an example for designing a confirmatory clinical trial. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Distribution of the two-sample t-test statistic following blinded sample size re-estimation.

We consider the blinded sample size re-estimation based on the simple one-sample variance estimator at an interim analysis. We characterize the exact distribution of the standard two-sample t-test statistic at the final analysis. We describe a simulation algorithm for the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis at given treatment effect. We compare the blinded sample size re-estimation method with two unblinded methods with respect to the empirical type I error, the empirical power, and the empirical distribution of the standard deviation estimator and final sample size. We characterize the type I error inflation across the range of standardized non-inferiority margin for non-inferiority trials, and derive the adjusted significance level to ensure type I error control for given sample size of the internal pilot study. We show that the adjusted significance level increases as the sample size of the internal pilot study increases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Application frequency and therapeutic effect of Astragalus in treating ischemic cerebrovascular disease.

In recent years, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) therapy has achieved substantial progress and development, playing an important role in clinical practice. In this paper, to explore the therapeutic effect of Astragalus in treating ischemic cerebrovascular disease, 2687 patients with ischemic cerebrovascular disease who had been treated with Astragalus therapy from Jan 2014-Oct 2015 were selected as the research objects. Through retrospective analysis of their medical records, we analyzed the application frequency of Astragalus using quantitative method of information, and conducted specific analysis on the therapeutic effect of Astragalus after fully surveyed patients' physical conditions after treatment. Results show that in the treatment of ischemic cerebrovascular disease by TCM, Astragalus is of high application frequency and sound therapeutic effect, which is deserved to be applied and promoted in clinical practices.