Ataxia Rating Scales Reflect Patient Experience: an Examination of the Relationship Between Clinician Assessments of Cerebellar Ataxia and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Ataxia rating scales are observer administered clinical outcome assessments (COAs) of the cerebellar motor syndrome. It is not known whether these COAs mirror patient experience of their disease. Here we test the hypothesis that ataxia COAs are related to and reflect patient reported symptoms and impact of illness. A concept library of symptoms and activities impacted by ataxia was created by reviewing (a) concept elicitation data from surveys completed by 147 ataxia patients and 80 family members and (b) cognitive debrief data from focus groups of 17 ataxia patients used to develop the Patient Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia. These findings were mapped across the items on 4 clinical measures of ataxia (SARA, BARS, ICARS and FARS). Symptoms reported most commonly related to balance, gait or walking, speech, tremor and involuntary movements, and vision impairment. Symptoms reported less frequently related to hand coordination, loss of muscle control, dizziness and vertigo, muscle discomfort or pain, swallowing, and incontinence. There was a mosaic mapping of items in the observer-derived ataxia COAs with the subjective reports by ataxia patients/families of the relevance of these items to their daily lives. Most COA item mapped onto multiple real-life manifestations; and most of the real-life impact of disease mapped onto multiple COA items. The 4 common ataxia COAs reflect patient reported symptoms and impact of illness. These results validate the relevance of the COAs to patients' lives and underscore the inadvisability of singling out any one COA item to represent the totality of the patient experience.

A placebo-controlled, randomized, single and multiple dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of rimegepant in healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Rimegepant is an oral, small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute treatment of migraine and migraine prevention. METHODS: This was a single-site, placebo-controlled, sequential, single and multiple ascending dose study in healthy males and females, aged 18-55 years, with no clinically significant medical history. The objectives were to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of the oral capsule free-base formulation. Single oral doses of rimegepant from 25-1500 mg were evaluated in the single ascending dose phase, and 75-600 mg/day doses administered for 14 days were evaluated in the multiple ascending dose phase. RESULTS: No dose-related trends were observed in orthostatic systolic and diastolic blood pressure or heart rate after rimegepant administration. Rimegepant was rapidly absorbed with the median time of maximum observed plasma concentration from 1-3.5 hours. Rimegepant showed a more than dose-proportional increase in exposure from 25-1500 mg following a single dose and from 75-600 mg/day following multiple doses. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was safe and generally well tolerated at single oral doses up to 1500 mg and multiple doses up to 600 mg/day for 14 days in healthy participants in this study. Median terminal half-life ranged from 8-12 hours across the wide range of single doses studied.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose. RESULTS: In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rimegepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that has shown efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine. We aimed to compare the efficacy of rimegepant with placebo for preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: We did a multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 92 sites in the USA. Adults with at least a 1-year history of migraine were recruited. After a 4-week observation period, eligible participants were randomised using an interactive web response system to oral rimegepant 75 mg or matching placebo every other day for 12 weeks (double-blind treatment phase). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from the 4-week observation period in the mean number of migraine days per month in the last 4 weeks of the double-blind treatment phase (weeks 9-12). Participants who received at least one dose of their assigned study medication and who had 14 days or more of data in the observation period and 14 days or more of data for at least one 4-week interval during the double-blind treatment phase were analysed for efficacy. Those who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732638. FINDINGS: Between Nov 14, 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, 1591 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, of whom 747 were randomly allocated either rimegepant (n=373) or placebo (n=374). 695 participants were included in the analysis for efficacy, of whom 348 were assigned rimegepant and 347 were allocated placebo. Rimegepant was superior to placebo on the primary endpoint of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12. The change from the observation period in mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 was -4·3 days (95% CI -4·8 to -3·9) with rimegepant and -3·5 days (-4·0 to -3·0) with placebo (least squares mean difference -0·8 days, 95% CI -1·46 to -0·20; p=0·0099). 741 participants received study medication and were included in the safety analysis. 133 (36%) of 370 patients who received rimegepant reported an adverse event, compared with 133 (36%) of 371 who received placebo. Seven (2%) participants who received rimegepant and four (1%) who received placebo discontinued the study due to an adverse event; no patients died. INTERPRETATION: Taken every other day, rimegepant was effective for preventive treatment of migraine. Tolerability was similar to that of placebo, and no unexpected or serious safety issues were noted. FUNDING: Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Rimegepant, an Oral Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonist, for Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor has been implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine. Rimegepant is an orally administered, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that may be effective in acute migraine treatment. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with at least a 1-year history of migraine and two to eight migraine attacks of moderate or severe intensity per month to receive rimegepant orally at a dose of 75 mg or matching placebo for the treatment of a single migraine attack. The primary end points were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (other than pain) identified by the patient, both of which were assessed 2 hours after the dose of rimegepant or placebo was administered. RESULTS: A total of 1186 patients were randomly assigned to receive rimegepant (594 patients) or placebo (592 patients); of these, 537 patients in the rimegepant group and 535 patients in the placebo group could be evaluated for efficacy. The overall mean age of the patients evaluated for efficacy was 40.6 years, and 88.7% were women. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the percentage of patients who were pain-free 2 hours after receiving the dose was 19.6% in the rimegepant group and 12.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3 to 11.9; P<0.001). The percentage of patients who were free from their most bothersome symptom 2 hours after the dose was 37.6% in the rimegepant group and 25.2% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 12.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.9 to 17.9; P<0.001). The most common adverse events were nausea and urinary tract infection. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of a migraine attack with the oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist rimegepant resulted in a higher percentage of patients who were free of pain and free from their most bothersome symptom than placebo. (Funded by Biohaven Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03237845.).

Real-world assessment of the relationship between migraine-related disability and healthcare costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the associations among migraine disability assessment scores, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; medical visits and pharmacy use) and direct medical costs among people with episodic migraine in a real-world setting. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a public health concern associated with a substantial economic burden in the United States. However, the association between migraine disability and direct medical costs among people with migraine is unknown. METHOD: This retrospective, cohort study used claims and electronic health record data from the Decision Resources Group database. Adults with migraine with or without aura, defined by International Classification of Disease Revision 9 (ICD-9) or ICD Revision 10 (ICD-10) codes, and a completed Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire from January 2016 to December 2018 were included (chronic migraine codes not included). The associations of MIDAS score with the cost of HCRU for the 6 months after MIDAS assessment were explored. Results were stratified by treatment setting. RESULTS: Among 7662 included patients, MIDAS scores were distributed as: 3348 (43.7%; I, little/none), 1107 (14.4%; II, mild), 1225 (16.0%; III, moderate), 893 (11.7%; IVa, severe), and 1089 (14.2%; IVb, very severe). Worsening disability was associated with higher medical costs (adjusted from a multivariable model). In the primary care setting, healthcare visit costs were $206 (95% confidence interval: $144-294) for grade I and $631 ($384-1036) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $203 (grade I; $136-301) and $719 (grade IVb; $410-1259). For specialty care (e.g., neurologist), healthcare visits cost $509 ($411-629) for grade I and $885 ($634-1236) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $494 (grade I; $378-645) and $1020 (grade IVb; $643-1620). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of migraine-related disability (MIDAS assessed) are associated with increased HCRU costs among Americans with episodic migraine. Migraine disability assessment could be useful in the development, testing, and prescription of cost-effective treatments for people with high migraine-related disability.

Zavegepant nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine: A Phase 2/3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zavegepant nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting agents are a novel class of therapeutics for migraine, but none are currently available as a nonoral option for acute treatment. Zavegepant, a high-affinity, selective, and structurally unique calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonist in late-stage development, is formulated as a nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, Phase 2/3 trial in adults aged ≥18 years with migraine (NCT03872453) was conducted at US study sites. Participants were randomized by an interactive web response system and treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain intensity with zavegepant nasal spray 5, 10, 20 mg, or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose. RESULTS: Of the 1673 participants aged 18 to 79 years who were randomized, 1588 were treated with study medication, and 1581 (mean age 40.8 years, 85.5% female) were analyzed for efficacy: zavegepant 5 mg (n = 387), 10 mg (n = 391), 20 mg (n = 402), and placebo (n = 401). Zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on the coprimary endpoints of pain freedom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 15.5% [98.3% confidence interval (CI), 11.1, 19.8]; 10 mg: 22.5% [98.3% CI, 17.5, 27.6; p = 0.0113]; 20 mg: 23.1% [98.3% CI, 18.1, 28.2; p = 0.0055]) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 33.7% [98.3% CI, 28.0, 39.3]; 10 mg: 41.9% [98.3% CI, 36.0, 47.9; p = 0.0155]; 20 mg: 42.5% [98.3% CI, 36.6, 48.4; p = 0.0094]). Findings for the 5 mg dose were not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with zavegepant 10 and 20 mg and placebo were dysgeusia (13.5% to 16.1% vs. 3.5%), nausea (2.7% to 4.1% vs. 0.5%), and nasal discomfort (1.3% to 5.2% vs. 0.2%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. There was no signal of hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSION: Zavegepant nasal spray, in single doses of 10 or 20 mg, was effective for the acute treatment of migraine, with a favorable safety profile. Additional research is needed to confirm its potential as a nonoral medication for the acute treatment of migraine.

A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore patient preference for attributes of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors for the preventive treatment of migraine and to describe differences in treatment preferences between patients. BACKGROUND: CGRP inhibitors are a novel class of migraine drugs specifically developed for the preventive treatment of migraine. Clinicians should understand patient preferences for CGRP inhibitors to inform and support prescribing choices. METHODS: Patients with migraine in the US and Germany were recruited to participate in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, which presented hypothetical treatment choices using five attributes: mode of administration, side effects, migraine frequency, migraine severity, and consistency of treatment effectiveness. Attribute selection was informed by a literature review and semi-structured patient interviews (n = 35), and evaluated using patient cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 5). RESULTS: Of 680 who consented to participate, 506 participants completed the survey and were included in the study (US = 257; Germany = 249). Overall, participants placed highest importance (preference weight, beta = 1.65, p < 0.001) on the treatment's ability to reduce the severity of migraine (mild vs. unchanged severity), followed by consistent treatment effectiveness (beta = 1.13, p < 0.001), and higher chance of reduced migraine frequency (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001). Participants preferred an oral tablet every other day (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001) over quarterly infusion, quarterly injections (p = 0.019), or monthly injection (p < 0.001). Preference for all treatment attributes were heterogeneous, and the subgroup analyses found that participants naïve to CGRP monoclonal antibody treatments had a stronger preference for oral therapy compared to those with such experience (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this DCE assessing CGRP inhibitors attributes, the main driver of patient choice was treatment effectiveness, specifically reduced migraine severity, and consistent treatment effectiveness. Further, patients exhibited an overall preference for an oral tablet every other day over injectables. Patients' experience with previous treatments informs the value they place on treatment characteristics.

Monthly migraine days, tablet utilization, and quality of life associated with Rimegepant - post hoc results from an open label safety study (BHV3000-201).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe patterns in monthly migraine days (MMD) and tablet utilization, and to estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures in patients treated as needed (PRN) with rimegepant 75 mg over 52-weeks. METHODS: Eligible subjects were adults with ≥1 year history of migraine and ≥ 6 MMD at baseline, who used rimegepant 75 mg up to once daily PRN (at their discretion) for up to 52-weeks in an open-label safety study (BHV3000-201; NCT03266588). Mean MMD were calculated at each 4-week period, along with mean monthly tablets taken. Migraine-specific quality of life (MSQv2) data were mapped to EQ-5D utilities and used to characterize HRQoL over time. A published network meta-analysis was used to characterize pain hours as well as time periods spent migraine free. RESULTS: One thousand forty four subjects were included in this post-hoc analysis. Overall mean MMD were 10.9 at baseline and decreased to 8.9 by week 52. Tablet use remained stable over the follow-up period. A total of 0.08 incremental QALYs were associated with rimegepant use. CONCLUSION: For subjects with 6 or more MMD, acute treatment of migraine attacks with rimegepant 75 mg on a PRN basis over one-year of follow-up was found to be associated with reduced MMD frequency without an increase in monthly tablet utilization, and improved HRQoL. There was no evidence of medication-related increases in MMDs when rimegepant 75 mg was used as needed for the acute treatment of migraine over 52-weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03266588 .

Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has extensively documented the impact of migraine episodes ('ictal') on patients' health-related quality of life. Few studies have looked at the impact of migraine on migraine-free days ('interictal'). This study was designed to describe interictal burden of migraine in a mixed group of people affected by migraine and to explore patient characteristics associated with interictal burden. METHODS: People with migraine in the United States (US) and Germany were recruited for a cross-sectional online survey, including a subgroup treated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb). The survey included the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and items measuring patient demographics, clinical and treatment background. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression. RESULTS: Five hundred six people with migraine completed the survey (US: n = 257; Germany: n = 249), of whom 195 had taken a CGRP mAb for three or more months. Participants had a mean of 8.5 (SD = 6.4) Monthly Migraine Days (MMD) and 10.4 (SD = 7.1) Monthly Headache Days (MHD). The mean MIBS-4 score was 6.3 (SD = 3.4), with 67% reporting severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: ≥5). The mean HIT-6 score was 65.3 (SD = 6.0), with 86% reporting severe migraine impact (HIT-6: ≥60). MIBS-4 was correlated with the HIT-6 (r = 0.37), MMD and MHD (both r = 0.27). The HIT-6, MMD, MHD, CGRP mAb treatment, and depression all had an independent positive association with the MIBS-4. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of the study sample reported substantial interictal burden. Whilst interictal burden was associated with migraine frequency and impact of migraine attacks, study results also show it represented a distinct aspect of the overall disease burden. Study findings further indicate unique associations between interictal burden and depression. A unique positive association between interictal burden and CGRP mAb treatment suggests a remaining unmet need among people affected by migraine treated with CGRP mAb.

Real-World experience of interictal burden and treatment in migraine: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The debilitating nature of migraine attacks is widely established; however, less is known about how the interictal burden (i.e., how patients are affected in-between migraine episodes) of migraine impacts on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). Acute and preventive treatments may lift the burden of the disease, but they often have unwanted side effects and limited effectiveness. The objective of this study was to understand the interictal burden of migraines, from the patient perspective, and to explore patient experience with migraine treatments. METHODS: Participants (n=35) with a self-reported diagnosis of migraine were recruited in the US, UK and Canada, including a subgroup of patients who had taken calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) treatment for at least three months. Participants completed a background questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured interview via telephone or video call. The interviews explored patients' migraine symptoms, perception of interictal burden and treatment experience. The interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The most reported migraine symptom was migraine pain, followed by aura, sensory sensitivity and nausea. Most participants reported interictal impact on HRQL, lifestyle changes they made to avoid triggers or in anticipation of an attack, impacts on work, career, daily activities and relationships. Emotional impacts were reported by all participants, including anger, depression, anxiety and hopelessness. Many participants who took preventive treatments reported improvements in HRQL and functioning but still experienced breakthrough attacks. Among patients who took CGRP mAbs, participants noted varying consistency of treatment effectiveness between treatment administrations. CONCLUSION: This study detailed the additional HRQL impact of migraine in-between migraine attacks and described the unmet need for effective treatment options to prevent and mitigate migraine attacks.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains. CONCLUSIONS: When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rimegepant, a small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine using a standard tablet formulation. The objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a novel orally disintegrating tablet formulation of rimegepant at 75 mg with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial, adults aged 18 years or older with history of migraine of at least 1 year were recruited to 69 study centres in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned to receive rimegepant (75 mg orally disintegrating tablet) or placebo and instructed to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The randomisation was stratified by the use of prophylactic medication (yes or no), and was carried out using an interactive web response system that was accessed by each clinical site. All participants, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment group assignment. The coprimary endpoints were freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose. The efficacy analyses used the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomly assigned, had a migraine attack with pain of moderate or severe intensity, took a dose of rimegepant or placebo, and had at least one efficacy assessment after administration of the dose. The safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03461757, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27 and Aug 28, 2018, 1811 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 1466 participants were randomly assigned to the rimegepant (n=732) or placebo (n=734) groups, of whom 1375 received treatment with rimegepant (n=682) or placebo (n=693), and 1351 were evaluated for efficacy (rimegepant n=669, placebo n=682). At 2 h postdose, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet was superior to placebo for freedom from pain (21% vs 11%, p<0·0001; risk difference 10, 95% CI 6-14) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (35% vs 27%, p=0·0009; risk difference 8, 95% CI 3-13). The most common adverse events were nausea (rimegepant n=11 [2%]; placebo n=3 [<1%]) and urinary tract infection (rimegepant n=10 [1%]; placebo n=4 [1%]). One participant in each treatment group had a transaminase concentration of more than 3â€ˆ× the upper limit of normal; neither was related to study medication, and no elevations in bilirubin greater than 2â€ˆ× the upper limit of normal were reported. Treated participants reported no serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: In the acute treatment of migraine, a single 75 mg dose of rimegepant in an orally disintegrating tablet formulation was more effective than placebo. Tolerability was similar to placebo, with no safety concerns. FUNDING: Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Safety of Rimegepant, an Oral CGRP Receptor Antagonist, Plus CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on-treatment adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study in adults with 2-14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2-8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4-week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ≥1 on-treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ≥2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment-related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION: Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

Partitioning the heritability of Tourette syndrome and obsessive compulsive disorder reveals differences in genetic architecture.

The direct estimation of heritability from genome-wide common variant data as implemented in the program Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis (GCTA) has provided a means to quantify heritability attributable to all interrogated variants. We have quantified the variance in liability to disease explained by all SNPs for two phenotypically-related neurobehavioral disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and Tourette Syndrome (TS), using GCTA. Our analysis yielded a heritability point estimate of 0.58 (se = 0.09, p = 5.64e-12) for TS, and 0.37 (se = 0.07, p = 1.5e-07) for OCD. In addition, we conducted multiple genomic partitioning analyses to identify genomic elements that concentrate this heritability. We examined genomic architectures of TS and OCD by chromosome, MAF bin, and functional annotations. In addition, we assessed heritability for early onset and adult onset OCD. Among other notable results, we found that SNPs with a minor allele frequency of less than 5% accounted for 21% of the TS heritability and 0% of the OCD heritability. Additionally, we identified a significant contribution to TS and OCD heritability by variants significantly associated with gene expression in two regions of the brain (parietal cortex and cerebellum) for which we had available expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). Finally we analyzed the genetic correlation between TS and OCD, revealing a genetic correlation of 0.41 (se = 0.15, p = 0.002). These results are very close to previous heritability estimates for TS and OCD based on twin and family studies, suggesting that very little, if any, heritability is truly missing (i.e., unassayed) from TS and OCD GWAS studies of common variation. The results also indicate that there is some genetic overlap between these two phenotypically-related neuropsychiatric disorders, but suggest that the two disorders have distinct genetic architectures.

Efficacy of combining interview techniques in detecting deception related to bio-threat issues.

The purpose of this project was to assess the detecting deception efficacy of three well-validated "detecting deception" methods - i.e., forced choice testing (FCT), modified cognitive interviewing (MCI) and autobiographical implicit association testing (aIAT) - when applied to the issue of bio-threat. The detecting deception accuracies of FCT and MCI were 81% and 75%, respectively. Although the aIAT mean response times in block 5 differed significantly between deceptive and truthful persons, the classification accuracy was low. FCT alone reduced the group of 64 persons to 11 and detected 50% of the liars; the false positive rate was 9%. MCI alone reduced the group of 64 to 24 and detected 92% of the liars; the false positive rate was 54%. When FCT was paired with MCI, 75% of liars were detected and the false positive rate was 13%. Forced choice testing and MCI show promise as methods for detecting deception related to bio-threat under low-base-rate conditions. These methods took little time, enhanced the odds of detecting deceptive individuals and exhibited high positive likelihood ratios, suggesting that they have merit as screening tools. The aIAT required more time and was less accurate but may still serve as a useful screening tool.

Video-Based Kinematic Analysis of Movement Quality in a Phase 3 Clinical Trial of Troriluzole in Adults with Spinocerebellar Ataxia: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional methods for assessing movement quality rely on subjective standardized scales and clinical expertise. This limitation creates challenges for assessing patients with spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA), in whom changes in mobility can be subtle and varied. We hypothesized that a machine learning analytic system might complement traditional clinician-rated measures of gait. Our objective was to use a video-based assessment of gait dispersion to compare the effects of troriluzole with placebo on gait quality in adults with SCA. METHODS: Participants with SCA underwent gait assessment in a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of troriluzole (NCT03701399). Videos were processed through a deep learning pose extraction algorithm, followed by the estimation of a novel gait stability measure, the Pose Dispersion Index, quantifying the frame-by-frame symmetry, balance, and stability during natural and tandem walk tasks. The effects of troriluzole treatment were assessed in mixed linear models, participant-level grouping, and treatment group-by-visit week interaction adjusted for age, sex, baseline modified Functional Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (f-SARA), and time since diagnosis. RESULTS: From 218 randomized participants, 67 and 56 participants had interpretable videos of a tandem and natural walk attempt, respectively. At Week 48, individuals assigned to troriluzole exhibited significant (p = 0.010) improvement in tandem walk Pose Dispersion Index versus placebo {adjusted interaction coefficient: 0.584 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.137 to 1.031]}. A similar, nonsignificant trend was observed in the natural walk assessment [coefficient: 1.198 (95% CI - 1.067 to 3.462)]. Further, lower baseline Pose Dispersion Index during the natural walk was significantly (p = 0.041) associated with a higher risk of subsequent falls [adjusted Poisson coefficient: - 0.356 [95% CI - 0.697 to - 0.014)]. CONCLUSION: Using this novel approach, troriluzole-treated subjects demonstrated improvement in gait as compared to placebo for the tandem walk. Machine learning applied to video-captured gait parameters can complement clinician-reported motor assessment in adults with SCA. The Pose Dispersion Index may enhance assessment in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION-CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03701399.

Long-term outcome in adults with obsessive-compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a chronic condition that often produces lifelong morbidity, but few studies have examined long-term outcome (greater than 5 years) in adult patients. Available studies suggest that 32-74% of adult OCD patients will experience clinical improvement over the long term. However, these studies were conducted before validated OCD rating scales were established and the development of evidence-based treatments for OCD. METHODS: We investigated the 10-20 year outcome of 83 of 165 eligible subjects previously enrolled after participation in placebo-controlled trials of serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) medications for OCD. We examined the association between clinical characteristics at initial assessment and OCD symptom severity at follow-up. We hypothesized that primary OCD symptom dimension and initial response to pharmacotherapy with serotonin reuptake inhibitors would be associated with later symptom severity. RESULTS: Only 20% (17 of 83) of subjects had experienced a remission of their OCD symptoms at follow-up (Y-BOCS ≤ 8). Forty-nine percent (41 of 83) of subjects were still experiencing clinically significant OCD symptoms. Response to initial SRI pharmacotherapy was significantly associated with long-term outcome: 31% (13 of 42) of subjects who responded (CGI < 3) to initial SRI pharmacotherapy were remitted at follow-up, compared to 12% (3 of 25) of partial responders and none of the 16 subjects who had no response to initial SRI pharmacotherapy. We did not find a significant association between long-term clinical outcome and any of the OCD symptom dimensions. CONCLUSION: Despite the introduction and dissemination of several evidence-based treatments for OCD, most adult OCD patients do not achieve remission. Initial response to pharmacotherapy was strongly associated with long-term outcome.

Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS): reliability, convergent and discriminative validity in young Italian adults.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale (S-STS) is a patient self-report or clinician-administered rating scale that tracks spontaneous and treatment-emergent suicidal ideation and behaviors. This study set out to evaluate the reliability, convergent and divergent validity of the S-STS in a sample of college students, a population with a high risk of completed and attempted suicide. METHODS: Cross-sectional, survey design. Participants (303 undergraduate students; males: 42%) completed several measures assessing psychological distress (General Health Questionnaire; GHQ); self-esteem (Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale; RSES); social support (Modified Social Support Survey; MOSSS); and suicidal behavior, including ideation and attempts (S-STS). RESULTS: Both internal consistency and test-retest stability were excellent for the S-STS-global score. The S-STS subscale on suicide ideation also showed good reliability, while the subscale on suicidal behavior showed some inconsistency at retest. Convergent and divergent validity of S-STS was confirmed. All S-STS items loaded on a single factor, which had an excellent fit for the unidimensional model, thus justifying the use of the S-STS as a screening tool. In a mediation model, self-esteem and social support explained 45% of the effects of psychological distress on suicide ideation and behavior as measured by the S-STS-global score. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided promising evidence on the convergent, divergent, internal consistency and test-retest stability of the Sheehan Suicidality Tracking Scale. The cross-sectional design and lack of measures of hopelessness and helplessness prevent any conclusion about the links of suicidal behavior with self-esteem and social support.

Rimegepant 75 mg in Subjects With Hepatic Impairment: Results of a Phase 1, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Study.

Rimegepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist (gepant) with demonstrated efficacy and safety in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Here, we report the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single 75-mg oral dose of rimegepant in subjects with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and matched healthy subjects from an open-label, single-dose, 4-group phase 1 study. Thirty-six subjects aged 41-71 years were enrolled, including 6 each with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and 18 healthy subjects. All subjects completed the study. A <20% increase in total and unbound pharmacokinetics was observed in subjects with mild hepatic impairment and ≤65% increase with moderate hepatic impairment versus matched healthy controls. Total and unbound systemic exposure increased 2.0- and 3.9-fold in the severe hepatic impairment group. In subjects with severe hepatic impairment, geometric mean ratios (severe impairment/controls) for total concentrations were 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity, and 189.1% for maximum observed plasma concentration. Corresponding geometric mean ratios using unbound concentrations were 388.8% and 388.7%, respectively. Three (8.3%) subjects reported 4 treatment-emergent adverse events. Rimegepant is not recommended for use in adults with severe hepatic impairment.