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 ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated. METHODS: ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC90 for nearly 12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709).

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans. BACKGROUND: Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double-blind, phase 3, single-attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants' historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve, respectively. Response rates on co-primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Safety and tolerability of ubrogepant following intermittent, high-frequency dosing: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a novel, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. This trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant, focusing on hepatic safety, when administered intermittently with high-frequency dosing to healthy participants. METHODS: In this phase 1, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, healthy adults (age 18-50 years) were randomized 1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant. Ubrogepant was dosed at 100 mg (2 × 50 mg tablets) on 2 consecutive days followed by 2 consecutive days of placebo, alternating for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of participants randomized (n = 518), 516 were included in the safety population (n = 260 placebo; n = 256 ubrogepant). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 45% of placebo and 44% of ubrogepant participants. The most common was headache (10% placebo; 11% ubrogepant). Overall, seven cases of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase levels ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal (five placebo, two ubrogepant) were reported and adjudicated by a panel of independent liver experts blinded to treatment. Four cases were judged unlikely related to treatment. Two cases (one placebo, one ubrogepant) were judged possibly related, and one (ubrogepant) probably related. Alanine aminotransferase increases to ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal in the two ubrogepant cases (possibly or probably related) were transient and resolved with continued dosing; both cases were asymptomatic, with no concurrent bilirubin elevation. CONCLUSION: Ubrogepant was well tolerated following intermittent, high-frequency dosing in healthy participants, with no clinically relevant signal of hepatotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

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.

The selective glycine uptake inhibitor org 25935 as an adjunctive treatment to atypical antipsychotics in predominant persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia: results from the GIANT trial.

Using a selective glycine uptake inhibitor as adjunctive to second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) was hypothesized to ameliorate negative and/or cognitive symptoms in subjects with schizophrenia. Subjects with predominant persistent negative symptoms (previously stabilized ≥3 months on an SGA) were enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate adjunctive treatment with Org 25935, a selective inhibitor of type 1 glycine transporter, over 12 weeks in a flexible dose design. Org 25935 was tested at 4 to 8 mg twice daily and 12 to 16 mg twice daily versus placebo. Primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms composite score. Secondary efficacy end points were Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total and subscale scores, depressive symptoms (Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia), global functioning (Global Assessment of Functioning scale), and cognitive measures using a computerized battery (Central Nervous System Vital Signs). Responder rates were assessed post hoc. A total of 215 subjects were randomized, of which 187 (87%) completed the trial. Both dose groups of Org 25935 did not differ significantly from placebo on Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (total or subscale scores), Global Assessment of Functioning, or the majority of tested cognitive domains. Org 25935 was generally well tolerated within the tested dose range, with no meaningful effects on extrapyramidal symptoms and some reports of reversible visual adverse effects. Org 25935 did not differ significantly from placebo in reducing negative symptoms or improving cognitive functioning when administered as adjunctive treatment to SGA. In our study population, Org 25935 appeared to be well tolerated in the tested dose ranges.

Effect of reversal of neuromuscular blockade with sugammadex versus usual care on bleeding risk in a randomized study of surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show a prolongation of activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time in healthy volunteers after treatment with sugammadex. The authors investigated the effect of sugammadex on postsurgical bleeding and coagulation variables. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind trial enrolled patients receiving thromboprophylaxis and undergoing hip or knee joint replacement or hip fracture surgery. Patients received sugammadex 4 mg/kg or usual care (neostigmine or spontaneous recovery) for reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method, stratified by thromboprophylaxis and renal status, was used to estimate relative risk and 95% confidence interval (CI) of bleeding events with sugammadex versus usual care. Safety was further evaluated by prespecified endpoints and adverse event reporting. RESULTS: Of 1,198 patients randomized, 1,184 were treated (sugammadex n = 596, usual care n = 588). Bleeding events within 24 h (classified by an independent, blinded Adjudication Committee) were reported in 17 (2.9%) sugammadex and 24 (4.1%) usual care patients (relative risk [95% CI], 0.70 [0.38 to 1.29]). Compared with usual care, increases of 5.5% in activated partial thromboplastin time (P < 0.001) and 3.0% in prothrombin time (P < 0.001) from baseline with sugammadex occurred 10 min after administration and resolved within 60 min. There were no significant differences between sugammadex and usual care for other blood loss measures (transfusion, 24-h drain volume, drop in hemoglobin, and anemia), or risk of venous thromboembolism, and no cases of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSION: Sugammadex produced limited, transient (<1 h) increases in activated partial thromboplastin time and prothrombin time but was not associated with increased risk of bleeding versus usual care.

Efficacy and safety of the glycine transporter-1 inhibitor org 25935 for the prevention of relapse in alcohol-dependent patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Org 25935 is a glycine transporter inhibitor that increases extracellular glycine levels and attenuates alcohol-induced dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens. In animal models, Org 25935 has dose-dependent effects on ethanol intake, preference, and relapse-like behavior without tolerance. The current study aimed to translate these animal findings to humans by examining whether Org 25935 prevents relapse in detoxified alcohol-dependent patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Adult patients diagnosed with alcohol dependence were randomly assigned to receive Org 25935 12 mg twice a day or placebo for 84 days. The primary end point was percentage heavy drinking days (defined as ≥ 5 standard drinks per day for men and ≥ 4 for women). Secondary end points included other measures of relapse-related drinking behavior (e.g., drinks per day, time to relapse), as well as measures of global functioning, alcohol-related thoughts and cravings, and motivation. RESULTS: A total of 140 subjects were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. The trial was stopped approximately midway after a futility analysis showing that the likelihood of detecting a signal at study term was <40%. There was no significant difference between Org 25935 and placebo on percentage heavy drinking days or any other measure of relapse-related drinking behavior. Org 25935 showed no safety issues and was fairly well tolerated, with fatigue, dizziness, and transient visual events as the most commonly occurring side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Org 25935 demonstrated no benefit over placebo in preventing alcohol relapse. Study limitations and implications are discussed.

Addition of an NK1 receptor antagonist to an SSRI did not enhance the antidepressant effects of SSRI monotherapy: results from a randomized clinical trial in patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Aprepitant is a neurokinin 1 receptor antagonist approved for prevention of chemotherapy-induced and post-operative nausea and vomiting. Early studies demonstrated promising antidepressant activity as monotherapy, although this was unsupported by subsequent phase 3 trials. This phase 2 study evaluated whether aprepitant potentiated the antidepressant effects of paroxetine. METHODS: Outpatients with major depressive disorder were randomized to aprepitant 200 mg + paroxetine 20 mg, paroxetine + placebo, or aprepitant + placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in HAMD-17 total score. Secondary/exploratory endpoints included changes in HAMA, CGI-S, CGI-I, and HAMD Item-1 scores at week 6. RESULTS: A total of 79, 78, and 79 patients received aprepitant + paroxetine, paroxetine + placebo, and aprepitant + placebo, respectively. At week 6, mean changes in HAMD-17 were -11.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -12.7, -9.4), -11.7 (95% CI: -13.3, -10.0), and -9.5 (95% CI: -10.9, -8.1), respectively. Pairwise comparisons of HAMD-17 change with combination therapy versus paroxetine alone demonstrated no significant difference (p = 0.567). Changes in CGI-S, CGI-I, and HAMD Item-1 scores were also comparable, although there was a greater reduction in anxiety (HAMA) with paroxetine alone than aprepitant + paroxetine (p = 0.045). Adverse events were generally more common with the combination than either monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of aprepitant + paroxetine for 6 weeks did not provide greater antidepressant benefit compared with paroxetine + placebo in patients with major depression.

Association of VMAT2 gene polymorphisms with alcohol dependence.

Alcohol-related diseases cause significant harm in the western world. Up to 65 % of the phenotypic variance is genetically determined. Few candidate genes have been identified, comprising ADH4, ALDH2, COMT, CRHR1, DAT (SLC6A3), GABRA2 and MAOA. While abnormalities in the dopaminergic mesolimbic reward system are considered important mediators of alcoholism, studies analyzing variants of dopamine receptors showed conflicting results. Other modulators of the reward system are synaptosomal genes. Among candidate genes, polygenic variants of the Vesicular Monamine Transporter 2 (VMAT2) gene locus associated with alterations of drinking behavior were published. These variants comprise single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the promoter region and the open reading frame. In this study, we confirm the association of VMAT2 SNP rs363387 (allelic association: p = 0.015) with alcohol dependence. This SNP defines several haplotypes including up to four SNPs (minimal p = 0.0045). In addition, numeric effects in the subgroups of males and patients with positive family history were found. We suggest that several rs363387 T-allele containing haplotypes increase the risk of alcohol dependence (OR 1.53), whereas G-allele containing haplotypes confer protection against alcohol dependence. Taken together, there is supporting evidence for a contribution of VMAT2 gene variants to phenotypes of alcohol dependence.

Asenapine as adjunctive treatment for acute mania associated with bipolar disorder: results of a 12-week core study and 40-week extension.

In a 12-week randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of adjunctive asenapine, bipolar I disorder patients experiencing manic or mixed episodes despite pretreatment with lithium or valproate monotherapy were treated with flexible-dose, twice-daily asenapine 5 or 10 mg (n = 158) or placebo (n = 166). The primary efficacy end point was change from baseline Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) total score at week 3. Secondary outcomes included YMRS response and remission and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score changes. Patients completing the core study were eligible for a 40-week double-blind extension assessing safety and tolerability. Adjunctive asenapine significantly improved mania versus placebo at week 3 (primary end point) and weeks 2 to 12. The YMRS response rates were similar at week 3 but significantly better with asenapine at week 12. The YMRS remission rates and changes from baseline on Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder for mania and overall illness were significantly better with asenapine at weeks 3 and 12. No other statistically significant differences on secondary outcomes were observed. Only a small number of patients entered the extension, making firm statistical conclusions on efficacy difficult. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by 5% or more of asenapine patients and at twice the incidence of placebo were sedation, somnolence, depression/depressive symptoms, oral hypoesthesia, and increased weight in the 12-week core study. Adjunctive asenapine to lithium or valproate was more effective than mood stabilizer monotherapy in the core study and was well tolerated for up to 52 weeks.

Asenapine versus olanzapine in people with persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

Two randomized, double-blind, 26-week core studies (Eastern [EH] and Western Hemisphere [WH]) tested the hypothesis that asenapine is superior to olanzapine for persistent negative symptoms of schizophrenia; 26-week extension studies assessed the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of these agents. In the core studies, 949 people were randomized to asenapine (n = 241 and 244) or olanzapine (n = 240 and 224); 26-week completion rates with asenapine were 64.7% and 49.6% (olanzapine, 80.4% and 63.8%) in the EH and WH, respectively. In the EH and WH extensions, respectively (asenapine, n = 134 and 86; olanzapine, n = 172 and 110), 52-week completion rates were 84.3% and 66.3% with asenapine (olanzapine, 89.0% and 80.9%). Asenapine was not superior to olanzapine in change in the 16-item Negative Symptom Assessment Scale total score in either core study, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine at week 52 in the WH extension study. Olanzapine was associated with modest, but significantly greater, changes in PANSS positive subscale score at various assessment times in both core studies and the WH extension study. Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between treatments across studies. Weight gain was consistently lower with asenapine. Extrapyramidal symptom-related adverse event incidence was higher with asenapine (EH: 8.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.1%-12.5%; WH: 16.4%; 95% CI, 11.9%-21.6%) than olanzapine (EH: 3.3%; 95% CI, 1.4%-6.4%; WH: 12.1%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.0%), but Extrapyramidal Symptom Rating Scale-Abbreviated total score changes did not significantly differ between treatments. In conclusion, asenapine superiority over olanzapine was not observed in the core studies. Both treatments improved persistent negative symptoms, but discontinuation rates were higher with asenapine.

Effects of asenapine on depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar I disorder experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes: a post hoc analysis of two 3-week clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Asenapine demonstrated superiority over placebo for mania in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute current manic or mixed episodes in 2 randomized, placebo-and olanzapine-controlled trials. We report the results of exploratory pooled post hoc analyses from these trials evaluating asenapine's effects on depressive symptoms in patients from these trials with significant baseline depressive symptoms. METHODS: In the original trials (A7501004 [NCT00159744], A7501005 [NCT00159796]), 977 patients were randomized to flexible-dose sublingual asenapine (10 mg twice daily on day 1; 5 or 10 mg twice daily thereafter), placebo, or oral olanzapine 5-20 mg once daily for 3 weeks. Three populations were defined using baseline depressive symptoms: (1) Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≥20 (n = 132); (2) Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder-Depression (CGI-BP-D) scale severity score ≥4 (n = 170); (3) diagnosis of mixed episodes (n = 302) by investigative site screening. For each population, asenapine and olanzapine were independently compared with placebo using least squares mean change from baseline on depressive symptom measures. RESULTS: Decreases in MADRS total score were statistically greater with asenapine versus placebo at days 7 and 21 in all populations; differences between olanzapine and placebo were not significant. Decreases in CGI-BP-D score were significantly greater with asenapine versus placebo at day 7 in all categories and day 21 in population 1; CGI-BP-D score reductions were significantly greater with olanzapine versus placebo at day 21 in population 1 and day 7 in populations 2 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: These post hoc analyses show that asenapine reduced depressive symptoms in bipolar I disorder patients experiencing acute manic or mixed episodes with clinically relevant depressive symptoms at baseline; olanzapine results appeared to be less consistent. Controlled studies of asenapine in patients with acute bipolar depression are necessary to confirm the generalizability of these findings.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult females.

This 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter randomized phase 2 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX) vs. placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) [NCT02116361]. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); secondary endpoints were Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 6. A total of 255 adult females were treated. OnabotA 30 U approached significance compared to placebo on MADRS (mixed-effect model repeated measures least-squares mean difference: -3.7; P = 0.053) and reached significance [least-squares mean differences: -3.6 to -4.2; P < 0.05 (two-sided)] at weeks 3 and 9. Secondary endpoints were also significant at several time points. At week 6, onabotA 50 U did not separate from placebo in any parameters. OnabotA was generally well-tolerated: the only treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥5% in either onabotA group, and more than matching placebo were headache, upper respiratory infection, and eyelid ptosis. OnabotA 30 U, administered in a standardized injection pattern in a single session, had a consistent efficacy signal across multiple depression symptom scales for 12 or more weeks. OnabotA 30 U/placebo MADRS differences of (observed ANCOVA) ≥4.0 points (up to week 15) and ≥2.0 points (weeks 18-24) agree with the 2-point change threshold considered clinically relevant in MDD. OnabotA is a local therapy and is not commonly associated with systemic effects of conventional antidepressants and may represent a novel treatment option for MDD.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults: a double-blind, randomised phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an orally administered, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist under investigation for treatment of migraine. We aimed to examine a range of oral doses for safety, tolerability, and efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine. METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 2b/3 trial, adults (aged 18-75 years), with a history (≥1 year) of migraine and 4-14 migraine days per month, were randomly assigned 2:1:2:2:1:1 (by means of a sequence generated by the statistical programming department of the sponsor, and operationalised through an automated interactive web-based response system) to receive placebo or atogepant 10 mg once daily, 30 mg once daily, 60 mg once daily, 30 mg twice daily, or 60 mg twice daily, in matching capsules. Participants, site personnel, and all study sponsor personnel were masked to treatment allocations. The study was done in 78 academic and private practice settings in the USA. The primary outcome was change from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks of treatment using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons across active treatment doses was controlled at the 0·05 level by means of a graphic approach. The main outcomes to assess safety and tolerability were adverse event recordings. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02848326 and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and April 23, 2018, of 1772 individuals screened, 834 were randomly assigned and 825 received one dose or more of study medication: 186 received placebo, 93 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 183 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 186 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 86 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 91 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Overall, 714 (87%) of 825 participants were female, 628 (76%) were white, median migraine duration was 17·5 years (IQR 10·0-28·0), and 232 (28%) had previously used preventive treatment. The primary efficacy analysis included 795 patients: 178 received placebo, 92 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 182 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 177 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 79 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 87 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Across the 12-week treatment period, all five atogepant groups showed significant least-squares mean (SE) change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days versus placebo: atogepant 10 mg once daily -4·0 (0·3; p=0·024), 30 mg once daily -3·8 (0·2; p=0·039), 60 mg once daily -3·6 (0·2; p=0·039), 30 mg twice daily -4·2 (0·4; p=0·0034), and 60 mg twice daily -4·1 (0·3; p=0·0031); placebo -2·9 (0·2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across all groups were nausea (range 5% [5/93] for 10 mg once daily to 12% [22/186] for 60 mg once daily vs 5% [9/186] for placebo) and fatigue (1% [1/93] for 10 mg once daily to 10% [9/91] for 60 mg twice daily vs 3% [6/186] for placebo). Treatment-related TEAE frequency ranged from 18% (17/93) for 10 mg once daily to 26% (24/91) for 60 mg twice daily, versus 16% (30/186) for placebo. Seven participants reported a total of eight serious TEAEs (two participants each in the placebo, 30 mg once-daily, and 60 mg once-daily groups, and one participant in the 10 mg once-daily group). TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 33 (5%) of 639 atogepant participants and 5 (3%) of 186 of those randomised to placebo. All serious TEAEs were unrelated to treatment. INTERPRETATION: All doses of oral atogepant were associated with a significant decrease in monthly migraine days over 12 weeks compared with placebo. Atogepant was safe and well tolerated over 12 weeks, supporting its phase 3 development for the preventive treatment of migraine. FUNDING: Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie).

Translating the HAM-D into the MADRS and vice versa with equipercentile linking.

BACKGROUND: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are scales used frequently to rate the symptoms of depression. There are many situations in which it is important to know what a given total score or a percent reduction from baseline score of one scale means in relation to the other scale. METHOD: We used the equipercentile linking method to identify corresponding scores of simultaneous HAM-D and MADRS ratings in 4388 patients from 31 mirtazapine trials in major depressive disorder. Data were collected at baseline and at weeks 1, 2 and 4. RESULTS: HAM-D scores of 10, 20, 30 and 40 roughly corresponded to MADRS scores of 13, 26, 39 and 52-53, respectively. An absolute HAM-D improvement of 10, 20, 25 points corresponded to a MADRS improvement of 12, 26, and 34. A percentage improvement from baseline of the HAM-D was approximately the same as a percentage improvement on the MADRS. CONCLUSION: These results are important for the comparison of trials that used the HAM-D and MADRS. We present conversion tables for future research.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Asenapine Maintenance Therapy in Adults With an Acute Manic or Mixed Episode Associated With Bipolar I Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the efficacy and safety of asenapine in preventing recurrence of any mood episode in adults with bipolar I disorder. METHOD: Adults with an acute manic or mixed episode per DSM-IV-TR criteria were enrolled in this randomized, placebo-controlled trial consisting of an initial 12- to 16-week open-label period and a 26-week double-blind randomized withdrawal period. The target asenapine dosage was 10 mg b.i.d. in the open-label period but could be titrated down to 5 mg b.i.d. After completing the open-label period, subjects meeting stabilization/stable-responder criteria were randomized to asenapine or placebo treatment in the double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to recurrence of any mood event during the double-blind period. Kaplan-Meier estimation was performed, and 95% confidence intervals were determined. Safety was assessed throughout. RESULTS: A total of 549 subjects entered the open-label period, of whom 253 enrolled in the double-blind randomized withdrawal period (127 in the placebo group; 126 in the asenapine group). Time to recurrence of any mood episode was statistically significantly longer for asenapine- than placebo-treated subjects. In post hoc analyses, significant differences in favor of asenapine over placebo were seen in time to recurrence of manic and depressive episodes. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were somnolence (10.0%), akathisia (7.7%), and sedation (7.7%) in the open-label period and mania (11.9% of the placebo group compared with 4.0% of the asenapine group) and bipolar I disorder (6.3% compared with 1.6%) in the double-blind period. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with asenapine was more effective than placebo in preventing recurrence of mood events in adults with bipolar I disorder and was generally well-tolerated.

A monoamine oxidase B gene variant and short-term antidepressant treatment response.

Genetic differences among patients suffering from Major Depression are likely to contribute to interindividual differences in medication treatment response. Thus, the identification of gene variants affecting drug response is needed in order to be able to predict response to psychopharmacological drugs. This study analyzed a possible association of the common A644G single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) within intron 13 of the monoamine oxidase B (MAOB) gene with antidepressant treatment response. The study population consisted of n = 102 patients with major depression (criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition; DSM-IV) participating in a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial, conducted at 50 centers in Germany, comparing the efficacy of mirtazapine and paroxetine during 6 weeks of treatment. Overall, female patients homozygous for the A-allele had a significantly faster and more pronounced antidepressant treatment response than AG/GG-carriers. In paroxetine-treated females these differences remained statistically significant. In mirtazapine-treated females homozygous for the A-allele compared to AG/GG-carriers, HAMD-17 scores during the study period were constantly and markedly lower, but not statistically different. In males, we found no association between the MAOB A644G intron 13 SNP and antidepressant treatment response. Our data provide first suggestive evidence that the MAOB A644G SNP is involved in the outcome of treatment with mirtazapine or paroxetine in females with major depression. To confirm the role of the MAOB A644G gene variant in antidepressant treatment response, independent replications are needed. If replicated, the MAOB A644G polymorphism could be considered useful for prospective confirmatory pharmacogenetic trials in patients with major depression.

Effects of vilazodone on sexual functioning in healthy adults: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and active-controlled study.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of vilazodone on sexual functioning in healthy, sexually active adults and assess the impact of medication nonadherence in this type of trial. Participants were randomized to vilazodone (20 or 40 mg/day), paroxetine (20 mg/day), or placebo for 5 weeks of double-blind treatment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to day 35 in Change in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ) total score in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Post-hoc analyses were carried out in modified intent-to-treat (mITT) populations that excluded participants in the active-treatment groups with undetectable plasma drug concentrations at all visits (mITT-I) or at least one visit (mITT-II). In the ITT population (N=199), there were no statistically significant differences between any treatment groups for CSFQ total score change: placebo, -1.0; vilazodone 20 mg/day, -1.4; vilazodone 40 mg/day, -1.9; and paroxetine, -3.5. In mITT-I (N=197) and mITT-II (N=159), CSFQ total score change was not significantly different between vilazodone (either dose) versus placebo; the CSFQ total score decreased significantly (P<0.05) with paroxetine versus both placebo and vilazodone 20 mg/day, but not versus vilazodone 40 mg/day. Vilazodone exerted no significant effect on sexual functioning in healthy adults. Medication nonadherence can alter study results and may be an important consideration in trials with volunteer participants.

What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the clinical relevance of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total scores. It is unclear how total scores translate into clinical severity, or how commonly used measures for response (reduction from baseline of ≥50% in the total score) translate into clinical relevance. Moreover, MADRS based definitions of remission vary. METHODS: We therefore compared: a/ the MADRS total score with the Clinical Global Impression - Severity Score (CGI-S) b/ the percentage and absolute change in the MADRS total scores with Clinical Global Impression - Improvement (CGI-I); c/ the absolute and percentage change in the MADRS total scores with CGI-S absolute change. The method used was equipercentile linking of MADRS and CGI ratings from 22 drug trials in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (n=3288). RESULTS: Our results confirm the validity of the commonly used measures for response in MDD trials: a CGI-I score of 2 ('much improved') corresponded to a percentage MADRS reduction from baseline of 48-57%, and a CGI-I score of 1 ('very much improved') to a reduction of 80-84%. If a state of almost complete absence of symptoms were required for a definition of remission, a MADRS total score would be <8, because such scores corresponded to a CGI-S score of 2 ('borderline mentally ill'). LIMITATIONS: Although our analysis is based on a large number of patients, the original trials were not specifically designed to examine our research question. CONCLUSIONS: The results might contribute to a better understanding and improved interpretation of clinical trial results in MDD.