Efficacy and safety of apremilast in patients with moderate-to-severe genital psoriasis: Results from DISCREET, a phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Genital psoriasis can be stigmatizing, is highly prevalent among patients with psoriasis, and has limited treatment options. Apremilast is a unique oral immunomodulating phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor approved for psoriasis treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of apremilast 30 mg twice daily in patients with genital psoriasis. METHODS: DISCREET, a phase 3, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03777436), randomized patients with moderate-to-severe genital psoriasis (stratified by affected body surface area <10% or ≥10%) to apremilast or placebo for a 16-week period, followed by an apremilast extension period. Week 16 results are presented. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to apremilast (n = 143) or placebo (n = 146). At Week 16, 39.6% and 19.5% of apremilast and placebo patients, respectively, achieved a modified static Physician Global Assessment of Genitalia response (primary endpoint; score of 0/1, ≥2-point reduction); treatment difference was significant (20.1%, P = .0003). Improvements in genital signs and symptoms, skin involvement, and quality of life were observed. Common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhea, headache, nausea, and nasopharyngitis. LIMITATIONS: Lack of active-comparator. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast demonstrated statistically and clinically meaningful genital Physician Global Assessment responses and improvement of signs, symptoms, severity, and quality of life in this first randomized, controlled study of an oral systemic treatment in patients with genital psoriasis.

Apremilast Long-Term Safety Up to 5 Years from 15 Pooled Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies of Psoriasis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Behçet's Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Since US FDA approval in 2014, apremilast has consistently demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in 706,585 patients (557,379 patient-years of exposure) worldwide across approved indications of plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and Behçet's syndrome; however, long-term exposure across these indications has not been reported. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a pooled analysis of apremilast data from 15 clinical studies with open-label extension phases, focusing on long-term safety. METHODS: We analyzed longer-term safety and tolerability of apremilast 30 mg twice daily across three indications for up to 5 years, focusing on adverse events of special interest, including thrombotic events, malignancies, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), serious infections, and depression. Data were pooled across 15 randomized, placebo-controlled studies and divided into placebo-controlled or all-apremilast-exposure groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4183 patients were exposed to apremilast (6788 patient-years). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate in the placebo-controlled period (96.6%) and throughout all apremilast exposure (91.6%). TEAE rates of special interest were similar between treatment groups in the placebo-controlled period and remained low throughout all apremilast exposure. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates per 100 patient-years during all apremilast exposure were MACE, 0.30; thrombotic events, 0.10; malignancies, 1.0; serious infections, 1.10; serious opportunistic infections, 0.21; and depression, 1.78. Safety findings were consistent across indications and regions. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of serious TEAEs and TEAEs of special interest was low despite long-term exposure, further establishing apremilast as a safe oral option for long-term use across indications with a favorable benefit-risk profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00773734, NCT01194219, NCT01232283, NCT01690299, NCT01988103, NCT02425826, NCT03123471, NCT03721172, NCT01172938, NCT01212757, NCT01212770, NCT01307423, NCT01925768, NCT00866359, NCT02307513.

Efficacy and safety of apremilast in patients with limited skin involvement, plaque psoriasis in special areas and impaired quality of life: Results from the EMBRACE randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Manifestations of psoriasis in special areas are difficult to treat and are associated with a high disease burden and significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. Topical therapies may be inadequate for these patients, necessitating systemic treatment. OBJECTIVE: The objective of EMBRACE was to evaluate the impact on QoL, efficacy and safety of apremilast 30 mg BID in patients with limited skin involvement with plaque psoriasis manifestations in special areas and impaired QoL. METHODS: EMBRACE (NCT03774875) was a phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational study. Patients had plaque psoriasis not controlled by topical therapy; lack of response, contraindication or intolerance to conventional first-line systemic therapy; psoriasis in ≥1 special area (including visible locations, scalp, nails, genital areas or palmoplantar areas); Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≥3 to ≤10; and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) >10. The primary endpoint was DLQI response (≥4-point reduction) at Week 16. RESULTS: Of 277 randomized patients (apremilast: n = 185; placebo: n = 92), 221 completed Week 16 (apremilast: n = 152; placebo: n = 69). The primary endpoint (≥4-point reduction in DLQI at Week 16) was met by significantly more patients receiving apremilast (73.3%) versus placebo (41.3%; p < 0.0001). Significantly greater improvement in affected body surface area (BSA) and PASI was observed with apremilast versus placebo at Week 16. There were also significantly greater improvements with apremilast versus placebo in itch numeric rating scale (-2.5 vs. -0.9, p < 0.0001) and skin discomfort/pain visual analog scale (-21.5 vs. -5.4, p = 0.0003) and greater achievement of Patient Benefit Index ≥1 (77% vs. 40%, p < 0.0001) at Week 16. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Apremilast significantly improved skin-related QoL in patients with limited skin involvement with plaque psoriasis in special areas and highly impaired QoL. The safety profile was consistent with prior apremilast studies.

Reduction in acute migraine-specific and non-specific medication use in patients treated with erenumab: post-hoc analyses of episodic and chronic migraine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM. CONCLUSIONS: In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AMG 301, a pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of AMG 301, an inhibitor of the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP)-1 (PAC1) receptor, for prevention of migraine. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, patients were randomized 4:3:3 to placebo, AMG 301 210 mg every 4 weeks, or AMG 301 420 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Effect on monthly migraine days and other secondary measures were assessed over weeks 9-12. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Of 343 randomized patients (mean age, 41.8-42.5 years), the majority were women (85.4-90.4%), white (94.1-96.2%), and had episodic migraine (62.5-67.9%). A total of 305 patients completed treatment (placebo, n = 124; AMG 301 210 mg, n = 94; AMG 301 420 mg, n = 87). Least squares mean reduction at week 12 in monthly migraine days from baseline was -2.5 (0.4) days for placebo and -2.2 (0.5) days for both AMG 301 treatment groups. No difference between AMG 301 and placebo on any measure of efficacy was observed; mean (95% confidence interval) treatment difference versus placebo for monthly migraine days for AMG 301 210 mg, 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.4); AMG 301 420 mg, 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.4). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: AMG 301 offered no benefit over placebo for migraine prevention; further studies may be necessary to fully understand the role of PACAP isoforms and its receptors in migraine pathophysiology. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03238781.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab in women with a history of menstrual migraine.

BACKGROUND: We performed a post hoc, subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of erenumab for prevention of episodic migraine (STRIVE) to determine the efficacy and safety of erenumab in women with self-reported menstrual migraine. METHODS: Patients received placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or erenumab 140 mg subcutaneously once monthly during the 6-month double-blind treatment phase of STRIVE. Women who reported history of menstrual migraine and who were ≤ 50 years old were included in the analysis. Endpoints were change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD; among patients who took acute migraine-specific medications at baseline), proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMD, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Among 814 women enrolled in STRIVE, 232 (28.5%) reported a history of menstrual migraine and were ≤ 50 years old. Of the 232 patients, 214 (92%) had a baseline MMD > 5, suggesting a high proportion of women with attacks outside of the 5-day perimenstrual window (2 days before and 3 days after the start of menstruation). Information on "migraine days" includes (and does not discriminate between) perimenstrual and intermenstrual migraine attacks. Between-group differences from placebo over months 4-6 for erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg were - 1.8 (P = 0.001) and - 2.1 (P < 0.001) days for MMD and - 1.6 (P = 0.002) and - 2.4 (P < 0.001) days for acute MSMD, respectively. The odds of having a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMD over months 4-6 were 2.2 (P = 0.024) and 2.8 (P = 0.002) times greater for erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively, than for placebo. Erenumab had an overall safety profile comparable to placebo. CONCLUSION: Data from this subgroup analysis of women with menstrual migraine are consistent with data from the overall STRIVE episodic migraine population, supporting the efficacy and safety of erenumab in women who experience menstrual migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740. Registered 28 May 2015.

The Spectrum of Response to Erenumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine and Subgroup Analysis of Patients Achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% Response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) response thresholds, using data from the 6-month double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Migraine Prevention (STRIVE) pivotal clinical trial. METHODS: Enrolled patients with episodic migraine (EM; ≥4 MMD and <15 monthly headache days) were randomized (1:1:1) to erenumab 70 mg (n = 312), erenumab 140 mg (n = 318), or placebo (n = 316) once monthly. We determined the proportions of patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in MMD over the last 3 months of the STRIVE DBTP (months 4 through 6) and conducted post hoc analyses to contextualize the treatment benefit in patient subgroups achieving, and not achieving, these response thresholds. Outcome measures included changes in MMD, acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: The proportions of patients with a reduction in MMD from baseline were greater for erenumab than for placebo at all response thresholds. As previously reported for the ≥50% response threshold, 135/312 (43.3%) of patients on erenumab 70 mg and 159/318 (50.0%) on erenumab 140 mg responded, vs 84/316 (26.6%) for placebo. At months 4 through 6, 65/312 (20.8%) and 70/318 (22.0%) of those on erenumab 70 mg and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% reductions vs 25/316 (7.9%) on placebo. A reduction of 100% response, which required no migraine days over 3 consecutive months based on observed data, was achieved by 10/312 (3.2%) of patients treated with erenumab 70 mg and 16/318 (5.0%) for erenumab 140 mg, vs 9/316 (2.8%) for placebo. At all response thresholds, responders achieved numerically greater reductions in mean MMD and MSMD, and greater improvements in disability than did the overall population; importantly, these remarkable responses were noted early. Meanwhile, 60/312 (19.2%) and 53/318 (16.7%) patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, had no reduction in MMD from baseline in months 4 through 6, compared with 104/316 (32.9%) patients on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The responses at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% thresholds provide context for establishing realistic patient and physician expectations regarding the magnitude of treatment benefit that may be achieved by patients with EM responding to erenumab (STRIVE, NCT02456740).

One-year sustained efficacy of erenumab in episodic migraine: Results of the STRIVE study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and tolerability of 1-year erenumab treatment in patients with episodic migraine. METHODS: Patients were randomized (n = 955; 1:1:1) during the 24-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) to monthly subcutaneous placebo or erenumab 70 or 140 mg. At week 24, 845 patients were rerandomized (1:1) to erenumab 70 or 140 mg during the 28-week dose-blinded active-treatment phase (ATP). Monthly migraine days (MMD), achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in MMD, and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Mean MMD at DBTP baseline was 8.3. At week 52, mean changes (SE) from pre-DBTP baseline/week 24 (pre-ATP baseline) in MMD were -4.2 (0.2)/-1.1 (0.2) (70 mg) and -4.6 (0.2)/-1.8 (0.2) (140 mg) irrespective of treatment during the DBTP. For patients reducing dose from 140 (DBTP) to 70 mg (ATP), change in MMD from week 24 to 52 was -0.1 (0.3), and for those increasing from 70 (DBTP) to 140 mg (ATP), -1.8 (0.3). At week 52, 61.0%, 38.5%, and 19.8% of patients on erenumab 70 mg, and 64.9%, 40.8%, and 21.2% on erenumab 140 mg, achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in MMD from DBTP baseline, respectively. Among erenumab-treated patients in DBTP who showed ≥50% reduction in MMD during the last 3 months of DBTP and completed ATP, 86% showed sustained responses at ≥50% during the last 3 months of ATP. Safety of erenumab in ATP was similar to DBTP; exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events were similar for either dose. CONCLUSION: Over 52 weeks, erenumab provided sustained efficacy in episodic migraine; the safety profiles were similar between erenumab dose groups in the presence of dose blinding. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02456740. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: Class II evidence that 52 weeks of treatment with erenumab 70 and 140 mg subcutaneously monthly results in sustained reductions in monthly migraine days and similar dose tolerability for patients with episodic migraine.

Vascular safety of erenumab for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular safety of erenumab across migraine prevention studies. METHODS: Vascular adverse events (AEs) and blood pressure data were integrated across 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of erenumab and their open-label extensions in patients with chronic or episodic migraine. Subgroup analyses were conducted by acute migraine-specific medication use and number of vascular risk factors at baseline. Standardized search terms were used to identify vascular AEs (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or peripheral). An independent committee adjudicated whether targeted events were vascular in origin. RESULTS: In placebo-controlled studies, 2,443 patients received placebo (n = 1,043), erenumab 70 mg (n = 893), or erenumab 140 mg (n = 507) subcutaneously once monthly. Regardless of acute migraine-specific medication use or vascular risk factors at baseline, AE incidence was similar across the placebo and erenumab treatment groups. Hypertension AEs were reported for 0.9% (placebo), 0.8% (erenumab 70 mg), and 0.2% (erenumab 140 mg) of patients. Vascular AEs, which were similar across double-blind and open-label treatment, generally were confounded, with plausible alternative etiologies. In 18 patients with events reviewed by the independent committee, 4 events were positively adjudicated as cardiovascular in origin: 2 deaths and 2 vascular events. All 4 positively adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred during open-label erenumab treatment. CONCLUSION: Selective blockade of the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor with erenumab for migraine prevention had a vascular safety profile comparable to that of placebo over 12 weeks, with no increased emergence of events over time. Further study of long-term safety of erenumab in patients with migraine is needed. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIERS: NCT02066415, NCT02456740, NCT01952574, NCT02483585, NCT02174861, and NCT01723514. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This analysis provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, erenumab does not increase the risk of vascular AEs.

Long-term tolerability and nonvascular safety of erenumab, a novel calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for prevention of migraine: A pooled analysis of four placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of erenumab have been evaluated in a comprehensive clinical development program resulting in approval for migraine prevention in over 40 countries to date. METHODS: This integrated safety analysis included four double-blind randomized trials and their extensions (up to three-plus years). Safety endpoints included exposure-adjusted patient incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and anti-erenumab antibodies. RESULTS: In all, 2375 of the patients randomized across the four studies received at least one dose of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg), with cumulative exposure of 2641.2 patient-years. Exposure-adjusted adverse event rates during the double-blind treatment phase were similar to placebo, with the exception of injection-site reactions (17.1 vs. 10.8 per 100 patient-years), constipation (7.0 vs. 3.8 per 100 patient-years), and muscle spasm (2.3 vs. 1.2 per 100 patient-years). During the long-term extensions, adverse events reported were similar to those observed during the double-blind treatment phase, and rates of injection site reactions, constipation, and muscle spasm were reported at lower rates than in the double-blind treatment phase. There were two deaths reported, both confounded by pre-existing conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled safety analysis revealed a favorable and stable adverse event profile over time for erenumab with more than three years of exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952574, NCT02483585, NCT02456740, NCT02066415, and NCT02174861.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in episodic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab was effective and well tolerated in a pivotal clinical trial of episodic migraine that included subjects both naïve to, and those who had failed, previous preventives. Here we evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) versus placebo in the subgroup of patients who had previously failed preventive treatment(s): ≥1 or ≥2 prior failed migraine preventive categories, and in patients who had never failed. METHODS: Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated change from baseline to months 4-6 (the primary endpoint of the blinded study phase) in monthly migraine days, achievement of ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days, and change from baseline in acute migraine-specific medication days. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment with both doses of erenumab resulted in greater reductions in monthly migraine days at months 4-6 (treatment difference versus placebo [95% CI], never failed subgroup: -0.9 [-1.5, -0.3] for 70 mg and -1.3 [-1.9, -0.7] for 140 mg; ≥1 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.0 [-2.8, -1.2] for 70 mg and -2.5 [-3.4, -1.7] for 140 mg; ≥2 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -1.3 [-2.6, 0.0] for 70 mg and -2.7 [-4.0, -1.4] for 140 mg). Similar results were observed in the monthly acute migraine-specific medication days endpoint, and in the achievement of ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days. For the ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine day endpoint, placebo response in the no prior treatment failed group was 32.6%, in the ≥1 failed treatment 17.5%, and in the ≥2 failed treatments 11.1%. CONCLUSION: Erenumab showed consistent efficacy in episodic migraine patients who had failed prior preventive treatments and was well tolerated across subgroups. The data suggest prior patients with prior treatment failures have lower placebo response rates.

Early onset of efficacy with erenumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction at all monthly assessment points tested in 2 pivotal trials in episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Early efficacy of migraine preventive medications is an important treatment characteristic to patients. Delays in achievement of efficacy can result in failed adherence. The objective of these post-hoc analyses were to evaluate efficacy in the first 4 weeks after initial subcutaneous administration of erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo. METHODS: There is no generally accepted methodology to measure onset of action for migraine preventive medications. We used a comprehensive approach with data from both studies to evaluate change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD), achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD, and proportion of patients experiencing migraine measured on a daily basis. The 7-day moving averages were overlaid with observed data. RESULTS: In both studies (EM: N = 955; CM: N = 667), there was evidence of onset of efficacy of erenumab vs. placebo during the first week of treatment, which in some cases reached nominal significance. For EM the changes in WMD were (least squares mean [LSM] [95% CI]): placebo, - 0.1 (- 0.3, 0.0); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.3 (- 0.5, - 0.2) p = 0.130; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.6 (- 0.7, - 0.4) p < 0.001. For CM the changes were: placebo, - 0.5 (- 0.8, - 0.3); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.9 (- 1.2, - 0.7) p = 0.047; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.8 (- 1.1, - 0.5) p = 0.18. Achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD was observed as early as Week 1 (adjusted OR [95% CI] erenumab vs placebo) in EM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.3 (1.0, 1.9) p = 0.097; erenumab 140 mg, 2.0 (1.4, 2.7) p < 0.001. A similar outcome was observed for CM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8) p = 0.011; erenumab 140 mg, 1.9 (1.2, 2.9) p = 0.009. Seven-day moving averages of observed data showed each treatment arm differed from placebo by Week 1 (OR [95% CI]): in EM Day 3 for erenumab 140 mg, 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) p = 0.031 and at Day 7 for 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) p = 0.002; in CM: Day 6 for erenumab 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) p = 0.022 and at Day 7 for 140 mg, 0.7 (0.4, 1.0); p = 0.038. CONCLUSION: Erenumab showed early onset of efficacy with separation from placebo within the first week of treatment in both chronic and episodic migraine patients.

Migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with erenumab.

Background We evaluated the effect of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, on migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine. Methods Patients enrolled in a phase 3, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of once-monthly erenumab 70 and 140 mg for migraine prevention (STRIVE) used an eDiary during the baseline and double-blind treatment phases to complete validated, specific questionnaires, including the modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire; Headache Impact Test; and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire-role function-restrictive (MSQ-RFR), -role function-preventive (MSQ-RFP), and -emotional function (MSQ-EF). Results A total of 955 patients were randomized to receive erenumab 70 mg (n = 317), erenumab 140 mg (n = 319), or placebo (n = 319). Erenumab versus placebo resulted in significantly greater improvements in all patient-reported outcomes; changes from baseline were numerically higher with 140 mg erenumab. Improvements occurred rapidly and were maintained over 6 months of treatment. Between-group differences from placebo over months 4-6 for the 70- and 140-mg dose groups were, respectively, -2.1 and -2.8 for modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, -2.1 and -2.3 for Headache Impact Test, 5.1 and 6.5 for MSQ-RFR, 4.2 and 5.4 for MSQ-RFP, and 5.2 and 6.7 for MSQ-EF ( p < 0.001 for all). Erenumab also significantly reduced the proportion of patients with severe and very severe migraine-related disability and increased the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvements in migraine-related impact and health-related quality of life. Conclusion Erenumab reduced migraine disability and impact and improved patients' health-related quality of life, reinforcing its role as a promising new therapy for migraine prevention.

ARISE: A Phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine.

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3. Results Patients receiving erenumab experienced -2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with -1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) ( p < 0.001). A ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was achieved by 39.7% (erenumab) and 29.5% (placebo) of patients (OR:1.59 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.27) ( p = 0.010). Migraine-specific medication treatment days were reduced by -1.2 (erenumab) and -0.6 (placebo) days, a treatment difference of -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2) ( p = 0.002). The ≥5-point reduction rates in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Physical Impairment were 33.0% and 27.1% (OR:1.33 (0.92, 1.90) ( p = 0.13) and in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Everyday Activities were 40.4% and 35.8% (OR:1.22 (0.87, 1.71) ( p = 0.26). Safety and adverse event profiles of erenumab were similar to placebo. Most frequent adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, injection site pain, and nasopharyngitis. Conclusions As a preventive treatment of episodic migraine, erenumab at a dosage of 70 mg monthly significantly reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication use. (Funded by Amgen). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02483585.

A Controlled Trial of Erenumab for Episodic Migraine.

BACKGROUND: We tested erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive a subcutaneous injection of either erenumab, at a dose of 70 mg or 140 mg, or placebo monthly for 6 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline to months 4 through 6 in the mean number of migraine days per month. Secondary end points were a 50% or greater reduction in mean migraine days per month, change in the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication, and change in scores on the physical-impairment and everyday-activities domains of the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (scale transformed to 0 to 100, with higher scores representing greater migraine burden on functioning). RESULTS: A total of 955 patients underwent randomization: 317 were assigned to the 70-mg erenumab group, 319 to the 140-mg erenumab group, and 319 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline was 8.3 in the overall population; by months 4 through 6, the number of days was reduced by 3.2 in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 3.7 in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 1.8 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). A 50% or greater reduction in the mean number of migraine days per month was achieved for 43.3% of patients in the 70-mg erenumab group and 50.0% of patients in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 26.6% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication was reduced by 1.1 days in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 1.6 days in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 0.2 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). Physical-impairment scores improved by 4.2 and 4.8 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.4 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and everyday-activities scores improved by 5.5 and 5.9 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 3.3 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). The rates of adverse events were similar between erenumab and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab administered subcutaneously at a monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg significantly reduced migraine frequency, the effects of migraines on daily activities, and the use of acute migraine-specific medication over a period of 6 months. The long-term safety and durability of the effect of erenumab require further study. (Funded by Amgen and Novartis; STRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02456740 .).

Depression symptom clusters and their predictive value for treatment outcomes: results from an individual patient data meta-analysis of duloxetine trials.

We evaluated individual patient data from phase II to IV clinical trials of duloxetine in major depressive disorder (MDD) (34 studies, 13,887 patients). Our goal was to identify clusters of patients with similar depressive symptom patterns at baseline, as measured by the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), and to investigate their respective predictive value of outcomes as measured by the HAMD-17 total score. Five clusters were identified at baseline: 1) "Lack of insight"; 2) "Sleep/sexual/somatic"; 3) "Typical MDD"; 4) "Gastrointestinal/weight loss"; and 5) "Mild MDD". However, it should be noted that cluster descriptors are not mutually exclusive. Analyses of the HAMD-17 total score results over time were performed using the 18 randomized placebo and/or actively controlled studies representing 6723 patients. At the end of acute treatment (ranging from 4 to 36 weeks), different levels of effect sizes for active therapy (64.5% duloxetine) vs. placebo were detected by cluster. In 3 out of 5 clusters (representing about 80% of the patients), the effect size was significantly different from 0, in favor of active therapy. The effect size was largest in those clusters with severe somatic symptoms ("Sleep/sexual/somatic" cluster [-0.4170], and "Gastrointestinal/weight loss" cluster [-0.338]). In conclusion, our cluster analysis identified 5 clinically relevant MDD patient clusters with specific mean treatment outcomes. Identification of MDD clusters may help to improve outcomes by adapting MDD treatment to particular clinical profiles.

Reading impairment in schizophrenia: dysconnectivity within the visual system.

Patients with schizophrenia suffer from perceptual visual deficits. It remains unclear whether those deficits result from an isolated impairment of a localized brain process or from a more diffuse long-range dysconnectivity within the visual system. We aimed to explore, with a reading paradigm, the functioning of both ventral and dorsal visual pathways and their interaction in schizophrenia. Patients with schizophrenia and control subjects were studied using event-related functional MRI (fMRI) while reading words that were progressively degraded through word rotation or letter spacing. Reading intact or minimally degraded single words involves mainly the ventral visual pathway. Conversely, reading in non-optimal conditions involves both the ventral and the dorsal pathway. The reading paradigm thus allowed us to study the functioning of both pathways and their interaction. Behaviourally, patients with schizophrenia were selectively impaired at reading highly degraded words. While fMRI activation level was not different between patients and controls, functional connectivity between the ventral and dorsal visual pathways increased with word degradation in control subjects, but not in patients. Moreover, there was a negative correlation between the patients' behavioural sensitivity to stimulus degradation and dorso-ventral connectivity. This study suggests that perceptual visual deficits in schizophrenia could be related to dysconnectivity between dorsal and ventral visual pathways.

Prescribing patterns of duloxetine in France: a prescription assessment study in real-world conditions.

Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved in the European Union for the treatment of major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in adults. This study aimed to assess the real-world conditions of duloxetine use in France. Between April 2009 and January 2010, 290 dispensing pharmacies, randomly selected from a nationally representative list, included 1,104 patients who presented a duloxetine prescription and consented to the study. Demographic, clinical, and prescription data were extracted from pharmacy records and requested from prescribing physicians. Of the 294 patients with full data available, the mean age (standard deviation) was 54.5 (13.5) years; 74.1% were female; and 86.7% presented with a renewal prescription. 73.5% of patients had major depressive disorder; 3.4% generalized anxiety disorder; and 3.4% diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain. Overall, 78.2% (95% CI: 73.1; 82.8) of patients received duloxetine for an EU-approved indication; 95.2% (95% CI: 92.1; 97.4) of patients had no contra-indication to duloxetine; and 99.0% (95% CI: 97.0; 99.8) received an approved dose. Combining these three criteria, the overall approved use of duloxetine was 73.7% (95% CI: 68.3; 78.7). The strengths and limitations of the study design are discussed.

Early vs. conventional switching of antidepressants in patients with MDD and moderate to severe pain: a double-blind randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant painful physical symptoms in depressive patients frequently impair functioning and failure to treat these symptoms may adversely impact treatment outcomes of depression. Early vs. conventional switch of antidepressants were compared in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and moderate to severe pain. METHOD: Pre-specified subgroup analysis of a 16-week, randomized, double-blind clinical study on MDD patients with >30 mm overall pain visual analog scale (VAS). Patients not achieving 30% reduction Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) after 4 weeks escitalopram (10 mg/day) were randomized to duloxetine 60-120 mg/day (early switch) or continued on escitalopram (conventional switch) with non-responders at week 8 switching to duloxetine. Endpoints were time to confirmed response and remission, VAS pain severity, and Sheehan disability scale (SDS). Switch strategies were compared using Kaplan-Meier, logistic regression, and repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: No differences between early and conventional switching were found in time to confirmed response after randomization (3.9 vs. 4.1 weeks, p=0.511) or remission (6.0 vs. 8.0 weeks, p=0.238). Significantly lower VAS mean pain levels at for overall pain, headache, back pain, shoulder pain, interference with daily activities, and time being awake in pain were found for patients in the early switching group. Time to achieving normal functioning (SDS total score <6) was shorter in the early switching group (p=0.042). Safety results were comparable between switch strategies. CONCLUSIONS: In MDD patients with moderate to severe painful physical symptoms not improving after 4 weeks of treatment with escitalopram, an earlier switch to duloxetine may lead to better pain and functional outcomes.