Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: For some people with migraine, despite taking greater amounts of acute headache medication (AHM), they develop an increase in monthly headache days. This cycle of increasing headache days, and in turn AHM use, can lead to a secondary headache disorder called medication-overuse headache (MOH). Preventive medications can prevent migraine from occurring and reduce reliance on AHMs, thereby preventing the cycle of MOH. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab to prevent migraine/headache in a mainly Asian patient population with a dual diagnosis of chronic migraine and MOH. METHODS: SUNLIGHT was a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Patients aged 18-75 years with ≥ 8 migraine days/month and a diagnosis of MOH were randomly allocated (1:1) to one of two treatment groups: eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo. Monthly migraine days (MMDs) were captured using a daily electronic diary; the change from baseline in the number of MMDs over Weeks 1-12 was the primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg (n = 93) or placebo (n = 100). Over Weeks 1-12, eptinezumab reduced mean MMDs more than placebo (difference between treatments was -1.2; p = 0.1484). Differences between treatment groups with p-values below 0.05 favoring eptinezumab were observed in 3 out of the 6 key secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: All endpoints numerically favored eptinezumab treatment when compared to placebo; however, this study did not meet its primary endpoint and is therefore negative. No new safety signals were identified in this study, like previous reports that confirmed the safety and tolerability of eptinezumab treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04772742 (26/02/2021).

EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF IDEGLIRA IN OLDER PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) in older patients has not yet been reported. This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira in patients aged ≥65 years. METHODS: A post hoc analysis compared results of patients aged ≥65 versus <65 years from DUAL II, III, and V. These were 26-week, phase 3, randomized, twoarm parallel, treat-to-target trials in patients already taking injectable glucose-lowering agents. We evaluated 311 patients aged <65 and 87 patients aged ≥65 years from DUAL II, 326 patients <65 years and 112 patients ≥65 years from DUAL III, and 412 patients <65 years and 145 patients ≥65 years from DUAL V. Patients were randomized to IDegLira or insulin degludec (DUAL II), IDegLira or unchanged glucagon-like peptide 1-receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (DUAL III), or IDegLira or IGlar U100 (DUAL V). RESULTS: In patients ≥65 years, hemoglobin A1C decreased to a greater extent with IDegLira than with comparators (estimated treatment differences, -1.0% [-1.5; -0.6]95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8% [-1.0; -0.5]95% CI, and -0.9% [-1.3; -0.6]95%CI) for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively; all P<.001). These mirrored results of patients <65 years of age. Hypoglycemia rates were lower with IDegLira versus basal insulin and higher versus unchanged GLP-1RA (estimated rate ratios, 0.5 [0.2; 1.6]95% CI [ P = .242]; 0.3 [0.1; 0.5]95% CI [ P<.001], and 11.8 [3.3; 42.8]95% CI [ P<.001] for DUAL II, V, and III, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients aged ≥65 years on basal insulin or GLP-1RA can improve glycemic control with IDegLira, and it is well tolerated overall. ABBREVIATIONS: A1C = hemoglobin A1C; AE = adverse event; CI = confidence interval; Degludec = insulin degludec; EOT = end of trial; ETD = estimated treatment difference; FPG = fasting plasma glucose; GLP-1RA = glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist; IDegLira = insulin degludec/liraglutide; IGlar U100 = insulin glargine 100 U/mL; SU = sulfonylurea; T2D = type 2 diabetes.

Mortality after cancer among patients with diabetes mellitus: effect of diabetes duration and treatment.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The prognostic role of different diabetes treatment types has not been studied in detail. We compared mortality rates among cancer patients with and without diabetes, accounting for diabetes treatment and diabetes duration. METHODS: This register-based study included all cancer patients diagnosed in Denmark during 1995-2009. The patients were classified into four groups according to diabetes status at the time of cancer diagnosis: no diabetes, diabetes without medication, diabetes with only oral hypoglycaemic agent (OHA) or diabetes with insulin treatment. Poisson models were used to examine the association between pre-existing diabetes in cancer patients and mortality relative to the non-diabetic cancer population. RESULTS: Among 426,129 patients with incident cancer, we identified 42,205 patients with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. Overall, cancer patients with diabetes had higher mortality rates than non-diabetic cancer patients, highest among OHA- or insulin-treated patients. For all cancers combined and diabetes duration of 2 years at cancer diagnosis, insulin-treated patients experienced the highest mortality rate ratios starting from 3.7 (95% CI 2.7, 5.1) for men and 4.4 (3.1, 6.5) for women 1 year after cancer diagnosis, increasing to 5 (3.5, 7.0) for men and 6.5 (4.2, 9.3) for women 9 years after cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our study provides strong evidence that cancer patients with pre-existing diabetes experience higher mortality than cancer patients without diabetes. The higher mortality seen among cancer patients treated with OHAs or insulin is in accordance with the existing evidence that more intensive diabetes treatment reflects a larger degree of comorbidity at the time of cancer diagnosis, and hence poorer survival.