Trial of Galcanezumab in Prevention of Episodic Cluster Headache.

BACKGROUND: Episodic cluster headache is a disabling neurologic disorder that is characterized by daily headache attacks that occur over periods of weeks or months. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be a preventive treatment for cluster headache. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had at least one attack every other day, at least four total attacks, and no more than eight attacks per day during a baseline assessment, as well as a history of cluster headache periods lasting at least 6 weeks, and randomly assigned them to receive galcanezumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously at baseline and at 1 month. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 after receipt of the first dose. The key secondary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks at week 3. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Recruitment was halted before the trial reached the planned sample size of 162 because too few volunteers met the eligibility criteria. Of 106 enrolled patients, 49 were randomly assigned to receive galcanezumab and 57 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) number of cluster headache attacks per week in the baseline period was 17.8±10.1 in the galcanezumab group and 17.3±10.1 in the placebo group. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 was 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (difference, 3.5 attacks per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). The percentage of patients who had a reduction of at least 50% in headache frequency at week 3 was 71% in the galcanezumab group and 53% in the placebo group. There were no substantial between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events, except that 8% of the patients in the galcanezumab group had injection-site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab administered subcutaneously at a dose of 300 mg once monthly reduced the weekly frequency of attacks of episodic cluster headache across weeks 1 through 3 after the initial injection, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02397473.).

Tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache with up to 15 months of galcanezumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache (CH) with up to 15 months of treatment. BACKGROUND: Chronic CH is a highly debilitating disease with a substantial and unmet medical need. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab (300 mg) monthly for 12 weeks, followed by an optional 52-week open-label extension and 16-week posttreatment follow-up (washout). This is a secondary analysis and long-term follow-up of a previously conducted clinical trial. The safety analysis included patients who received galcanezumab at any time during the study. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and suicidality ratings. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients received at least one galcanezumab dose. The mean exposure was 341 days. Galcanezumab-treated patients were mostly male (n = 169/233; 72.5%) with a mean age of 44.9 (±10.9) years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 185 patients (n = 185/233; 79.4%), 23 patients (n = 23/233; 9.9%) reported serious adverse events (SAEs), and 18 patients (n = 18/233; 7.7%) discontinued due to AEs. The SAE CH was reported by three patients. The most common TEAEs (>10%) were nasopharyngitis (n = 41/233; 17.6%) and injection site pain (n = 33/233; 14.2%). 27.5% of patients (n = 64/233) had TEAEs related to injection sites. Likely hypersensitivity events, including injection site rash, injection site urticaria, and injection site hypersensitivity were reported (n = 14/233; 6.0%). There were past histories of suicidal ideation (n = 55/237; 23.2%) and suicidal behavior (n = 9/236; 3.8%). During the study, 15 patients (n = 15/230; 6.5%), seven with previous history, reported suicidal ideation. One patient had a nonfatal suicide attempt during the open-label extension and an aborted attempt during the washout. There were no new safety findings compared with the placebo-controlled treatment period in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab 300 mg monthly had a favorable tolerability and safety profile in patients with chronic CH with up to 15 months of treatment.

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.

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adult Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine Treated With Galcanezumab: Data From Three Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP), pulse, electrocardiogram (ECG), and clinical cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated for up to 6 months with galcanezumab compared to placebo were evaluated. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide, a potent microvascular vasodilator, has a hypothesized protective role in CV health. Increased CV risks have been reported in patients with migraine. METHODS: In 2 similarly designed episodic migraine 6-month studies and 1 chronic migraine 3-month study, data from patients randomized (1:1:2) to subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following initial 240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg/month or placebo were pooled. Treatment comparisons for cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (CV TEAE) and categorical and mean changes in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Mean changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the analysis of covariance model. RESULTS: Overall, among galcanezumab 120 mg (n = 705) and 240 mg (n = 730), and placebo (n = 1451) groups, the percentage of patients reporting ≥1 CV TEAE was low and was similar between the galcanezumab 120 mg (2.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5,1.5) and galcanezumab 240 mg (3.3%; OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7,1.9), and placebo (2.9%) groups. The frequency of any individual CV TEAE, broad or narrow term, was ≤1.4%. The CV-related serious adverse events that occurred in the galcanezumab 240 mg group (n = 3; acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and placebo group (n = 3; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction) were not considered treatment related. Four placebo- and 1 galcanezumab-treated patient discontinued due to a CV TEAE. Least squares mean and categorical changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month treatment trial, the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients that reported CV TEAEs or serious adverse events were low and similar between groups with few discontinuations. Thus, no clinically meaningful treatment group differences were observed for changes in BP, pulse, or ECG parameters. Additional longer-term studies in a broader and larger cohort are required to better characterize CV safety.

Onset of efficacy and duration of response of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: a post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As new migraine prevention treatments are developed, the onset of a preventive effect, how long it is maintained and whether patients initially non-responsive develop clinically meaningful responses with continued treatment can be assessed. METHODS: Analyses were conducted post-hoc of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II-a study in patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab 150 mg or placebo biweekly for 12 weeks (Lancet Neurol 13:885, 2014). The number of migraine headache days per week, and onset of efficacy measured as the first week galacanezumab separated from placebo were determined. Patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in migraine headache days from baseline at months 1, 2 and 3 were calculated and defined as sustained responses. Non-responders (<50% response) at month 1 or 2 who then showed ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% response at later time-points were calculated. RESULTS: Patients were randomised to galcanezumab (n=107) or placebo (n=110). A significant (p=0.018) change of -0.89±0.11 (galcanezumab) vs -0.53±0.11 (placebo) migraine headache days indicated onset at week 1. Forty-seven per cent of galcanezumab and 25% of placebo patients responding at month 1 maintained response through months 2 and 3. Of non-responders at month 1, 27% on galcanezumab and 20% on placebo responded on months 2 and 3, and 50% of galcanezumab non-responders in months 1 and 2 responded on month 3, vs 24% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of efficacy of galcanezumab is within 1 week in a majority of patients, and patients receiving galcanezumab are twice more likely to maintain responses than placebo patients. Early non-responders may respond by month 2 or month 3. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01625988.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months. RESULTS: Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Galcanezumab and rimegepant are preventive treatments for episodic migraine. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of galcanezumab and rimegepant in reducing the number of monthly migraine headaches and to determine if galcanezumab was better than rimegepant. The study provides important information to doctors and their patients when making treatment decisions.People with episodic migraine were assigned to the galcanezumab (given as an injection under the skin) or rimegepant (given as a tablet that dissolves in the mouth) group and treated for 3 months. The doctor and the patient did not know which group they were assigned to, and to keep it unknown to both, people in the galcanezumab group got an injection with real medicine and a fake tablet, and people in the rimegepant group got a tablet with real medicine and a fake injection. The researchers wanted to know how many people in each group had at least a 50% reduction in their monthly migraine headaches.Of the 580 people in the study, 287 were assigned to galcanezumab and 293 to rimegepant. In both groups, most were female and white. After 3 months of treatment, 62% of the people in the galcanezumab group and 61% of people in the rimegepant group had at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headaches. Both treatments were effective, but galcanezumab was not better than rimegepant. About 20% of the people in each treatment group had a side effect from the medication, and most were mild or moderate in severity.

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache: data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials in Europe and North America.

Objective: Two phase 3 galcanezumab trials were conducted in Europe and North America to analyze the reduction of weekly cluster headache (CH) attack frequency in populations with episodic and chronic CH. The current study aims to illustrate prospectively recorded baseline clinical data from these trials and to identify possible predictors of response. Methods: Patients (aged 18-65 years) met The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition-beta criteria for CH. Attacks were evaluated using an electronic headache diary for 7-day (episodic) or 14-day (chronic) eligibility assessments before patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo. Results: Data were collected from 106 patients with episodic and 237 with chronic CH. Overall, the mean age [standard deviation] was 45.4 [11.0] years; patients were predominantly White (84.5%), male (75.8%), and European (77.6%). Patients with episodic CH reported 17.5 [10.0] attacks/week; patients with chronic CH reported 18.8 [10.2] attacks/week. The average pain severity score (range 0-4) was 2.5 [0.7] for episodic CH and 2.7 [0.7] for chronic CH. Higher attack frequency was a possible predictor of response to galcanezumab; potential negative predictors of response were greater attack severity and duration. Conclusion: This large dataset of patients with CH provides reliable systematically and prospectively collected information on disease characteristics. The analysis in episodic CH underscores potential predictors of response worth considering for future CH trial design. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers: NCT02397473 and NCT02438826.

Duloxetine for the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder in elderly patients: treatment outcomes in patients with comorbid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation and treatment of major depression (MDD) in elderly patients is frequently complicated by the presence of comorbid medical conditions, which can reduce the effect of depression treatment, leading to lower rates of depressive-symptom improvement and higher rates of relapse. OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated results of antidepressant concurrent with arthritis pain treatment in elderly patients. METHOD: Patients age 65 and over with recurrent MDD were stratified by arthritis status and randomized to duloxetine (a dual reuptake-inhibitor of serotonin and norepinephrine) or placebo treatment for 8 weeks (duloxetine, N=117; placebo, N=55). RESULTS: Duloxetine significantly reduced MDD symptom severity in elderly patients with and without arthritis, and produced significant reduction in several pain measures in those patients with comorbid arthritis. DISCUSSION: The magnitude and time-course of depressive symptom improvement did not differ significantly between patients with and without arthritis. Some studies have suggested that the severity of pain in arthritis patients may be linked to depression severity.

Effect of Different Doses of Galcanezumab vs Placebo for Episodic Migraine Prevention: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Galcanezumab (LY2951742), a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is one of a novel class of new medicines for migraine prevention. Objective: To assess whether at least 1 dose of galcanezumab was superior to placebo for episodic migraine prevention. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in the United States (July 7, 2014, to August 19, 2015) in clinics of 37 licensed physicians with a specialty including, but not limited to, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, and primary care. Subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, 5, 50, 120, or 300 mg, or placebo were given monthly during the 3-month treatment period. A total of 936 patients were assessed; 526 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria and 410 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or galcanezumab. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study drug. Interventions: Short-term migraine treatments were allowed as needed except for opioids or barbiturates. Main Outcomes and Measures: To determine if at least 1 of the 4 doses of galcanezumab tested was superior to placebo for migraine prevention measured by the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days 9 weeks to 12 weeks after randomization. Results: Of the 936 patients assessed, 410 met entry criteria (aged 18-65 years with 4-14 migraine headache days per month and migraine onset prior to age 50 years) and were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab. For the primary end point, galcanezumab, 120 mg, significantly reduced migraine headache days compared with placebo (99.6% posterior probability -4.8 days; 90% BCI, -5.4 to -4.2 days vs 95% superiority threshold [Bayesian analysis] -3.7 days; 90% BCI, -4.1 to -3.2 days). Adverse events reported by 5% or more of patients in at least 1 galcanezumab dose group and more frequently than placebo included injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, dysmenorrhea, and nausea. Conclusions and Relevance: Monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, both 120 mg and 300 mg, demonstrated efficacy (repeated-measures analysis) for the preventive treatment of migraine and support further development in larger phase 3 studies. All dosages were safe and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163993.

Edivoxetine compared to placebo as adjunctive therapy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the prevention of symptom re-emergence in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: When patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) are partial responders to antidepressant therapy, adjunctive treatment with an agent that has a different mode of action may provide additional benefit. We investigated the efficacy of edivoxetine, a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (NRI), as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the prevention of re-emergence of depressive symptoms in patients with MDD (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01299272). METHODS: Adult outpatients with MDD who were partial responders to SSRI treatment (N = 1249) entered an open-label 8 week flexibly dosed (12-18 mg/day) adjunctive edivoxetine period. Patients who achieved remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score ≤10 at week 8) entered a 12 week open-label fixed-dose (12 mg or 18 mg/day) stabilization period, and those still in remission at each of weeks 18, 19, and 20 were randomized to continue treatment at the same dose of edivoxetine or switch to placebo for a 24 week double-blind withdrawal period. All patients remained on SSRI therapy throughout the study. The primary outcome was time to re-emergence of depressive symptoms during double-blind withdrawal. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-four patients were randomized to continue adjunctive edivoxetine and 292 were switched to adjunctive placebo. Comparing adjunctive edivoxetine with adjunctive placebo, differences were not significant for time to re-emergence of symptoms (Kaplan-Meier log-rank p = 0.485), rates of symptom re-emergence (9.9% vs 8.2%, p = 0.565) or rates of sustained remission (75.4% vs 76.7%, p = 0.771). Treatment-emergent adverse events were consistent with the noradrenergic mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: Edivoxetine failed to demonstrate superiority vs placebo as adjunctive treatment in the prevention of symptom re-emergence during maintenance treatment in SSRI partial responders with MDD. While no selective NRIs are approved for adjunctive treatment to SSRIs in MDD, the use of NRIs in this population is nonetheless accepted practice, but our data do not support the efficacy of this approach.

Safety and tolerability of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted on data obtained from the integrated safety database of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRIs. Safety and tolerability assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, blood pressure (BP) and pulse, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). RESULTS: The analysis included 1260 patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine and 806 treated with adjunctive placebo. Study completion rates were 85.2% and 84.5% (p=0.994), respectively. Discontinuations due to adverse events were 4.9% and 3.5% (p=0.07), respectively. Significantly more patients in the adjunctive edivoxetine group compared with adjunctive placebo group reported at least one TEAE (56.8 vs 43.7%, p<0.001). The most common TEAEs (occurred ≥5% frequency) were hyperhidrosis, nausea, and tachycardia. Mean changes in sitting BP and pulse at the last visit were increased significantly in patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine compared with adjunctive placebo (SBP: 2.7 vs 0.5 mm Hg, p<0.001; DBP: 4.1 vs 0.8 mm Hg, p<0.001; pulse: 8.8 vs -1.3 bpm, p<0.001). There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory measures. CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability and safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRI antidepressants was consistent with its norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor mechanism of action, and was comparable with edivoxetine monotherapy treatment in patients with major depressive disorder.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine in elderly patients with major depressive disorder: a pooled analysis of two placebo-controlled studies.

The objective of this study was to examine the safety and tolerability of duloxetine hydrochloride, a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, in a large cohort of elderly patients with major depressive disorder. Data were pooled from 8-week and 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine 60 mg/day (duloxetine=456; placebo=225). Discontinuation rates because of adverse events, treatment-emergent adverse events, abnormal changes in vital signs and weight, and changes in laboratory analytes were compared between treatments using a Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Changes in laboratory analytes were analyzed using an analysis of variance model. Adverse event-related discontinuation rates were not significantly different between duloxetine and placebo (10.7 vs. 7.1%; P=0.13). Treatment-emergent adverse events for duloxetine of at least 5% and twice the rate of placebo were dry mouth, constipation, nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue. Abnormal changes in vital signs and weight were not significantly different at any time between duloxetine and placebo. The mean changes in platelet count, alkaline phosphatase, potassium, random glucose, uric acid, and cholesterol were significantly different between duloxetine and placebo (P<0.05), but none of these differences were considered clinically relevant. The incidence of abnormal low sodium levels was not significantly different between treatments. These safety results may better inform clinicians providing individualized care to elderly patients with major depressive disorder.

Assessment of falls in older patients treated with duloxetine: a secondary analysis of a 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess fall events in older depressed patients during treatment with duloxetine. METHOD: Post hoc analysis of solicited fall events collected at each study visit using a questionnaire during a 24-week, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 4 trial (November 2006 to November 2009). Older outpatients (≥ 65 years) with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV criteria) were randomly assigned to duloxetine 60 mg/d (n = 249) or placebo (n = 121) for the 12-week acute phase, after which the duloxetine dose could be increased to 120 mg/d and nonresponding placebo patients could be switched to duloxetine 60 mg/d. Between-treatment differences in percentages of patients with fall events were compared by Fisher exact test. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (EAIRs) of falls per patient-year were also estimated. RESULTS: In the acute phase, 17.3% of patients treated with duloxetine 60 mg versus 11.6% treated with placebo (P = .170) experienced a fall event. Over 24 weeks, the percentage of patients with a fall while taking duloxetine 60 mg versus placebo was 24.0% versus 15.7% (P = .078), and the percentage was significantly higher in patients taking duloxetine regardless of dose (25.3%) than with placebo (15.7%, P = .045). Between-treatment differences in EAIRs over 12 weeks (0.26; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.72) and over 24 weeks (0.27; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.65) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Direct assessment of fall events greatly increases the number of falls reported by patients. Although the EAIR of falls per patient-year associated with duloxetine was not significant in this trial, clinicians should remain vigilant about the possibility of falls in older patients with duloxetine or any antidepressant treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00406848.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the acute management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: analysis of pooled data from three placebo-controlled clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Summarize safety and tolerability of duloxetine in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Pooled data from three double-blind, randomized studies with 12-week, placebo-controlled (acute) and 52-week, routine-care-controlled (extension) phases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency/discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: There were 1139 (placebo, n = 339; duloxetine, n = 800) and 867 (routine-care, n = 287; duloxetine, n = 580) patients in the acute and extension phases, respectively. Patient details were as follow: 60 years (mean age); Caucasian, 84%; and male, 57%. In the acute phase, there were significantly more TEAEs, duloxetine versus placebo (p = 0.001), the most common being nausea and somnolence. Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly greater (12.5 vs 5.6%, p < 0.001), with similar outcomes in the extension phase. Baseline-to-endpoint aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase were significantly increased and fasting plasma glucose was increased for duloxetine (0.67 mmol/l) versus decreased in routine-care (-0.64 mmol/l, p < 0.001). HbA1c was significantly increased, duloxetine vs routine-care, in the extension phase (52 vs 19%, p < 0.001). Endpoint measures neuropathy, nephropathy and retinopathy indicated no disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine was generally safe and well tolerated, with the three most commonly reported TEAEs being nausea, somnolence and constipation. Modest changes in glycemia were associated with duloxetine. Aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase increases were transient and not considered predictive of more severe outcomes.

A Rab-GAP TBC domain protein binds hepatitis C virus NS5A and mediates viral replication.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an important cause of liver disease worldwide. Current therapies are inadequate for most patients. Using a two-hybrid screen, we isolated a novel cellular binding partner interacting with the N terminus of HCV nonstructural protein NS5A. This partner contains a TBC Rab-GAP (GTPase-activating protein) homology domain found in all known Rab-activating proteins. As the first described interaction between such a Rab-GAP and a viral protein, this finding suggests a new mechanism whereby viruses may subvert host cell machinery for mediating the endocytosis, trafficking, and sorting of their own proteins. Moreover, depleting the expression of this partner severely impairs HCV RNA replication with no obvious effect on cell viability. These results suggest that pharmacologic disruption of this NS5A-interacting partner can be contemplated as a potential new antiviral strategy against a pathogen affecting nearly 3% of the world's population.