Call to action: Harmonization of pharmacovigilance regulations for post-marketing pregnancy and breastfeeding safety studies.

Globally, more than 200 million women become pregnant each year, most of whom receive medications despite limited information on their safe use during pregnancy. The paucity of drug safety data on pregnant and breastfeeding women stems from the routine exclusion of this population from clinical trials due to scientific, ethical, regulatory and legal concerns. Consequently, at the time of initial drug approval, there may be scant safety data to inform the drug benefit-risk balance to the mother, foetus or infant. Although momentum is growing to include this underrepresented population in clinical trials, most information on drug exposure outcomes comes from data collected in the postmarketing setting. Regulatory guidance and legislation on medication use in pregnancy and breastfeeding were reviewed globally by the TransCelerate IGR PV Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Team. The International Conference of Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) standards and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences guidelines served as benchmarks for national safety regulations and guidance. The landscape assessment identified a lack of harmonization of global regulations on research in pregnant and breastfeeding women and a lack of specific regulations on this topic in the majority of the territories included in the assessment. This article focuses on the ambiguities and lack of harmonization in global regulations on postmarketing pregnancy and breastfeeding safety studies. There is currently no ICH standard to guide these types of safety studies and, in most regions reviewed, there are no clear regulations or guidance on when and how to conduct them. While a challenging undertaking, greater clarity and harmonization would facilitate more timely completion of postmarketing pregnancy safety studies that would ultimately generate the critical data needed to optimize benefit-risk decisions for women who may conceive, as well as pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Phase 1, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effects of erenumab (AMG 334) and concomitant sumatriptan on blood pressure in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of concomitant administration of erenumab and sumatriptan on resting blood pressure, pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability in healthy subjects. METHODS: In this phase 1, parallel-group, one-way crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy adult subjects were randomized (1:2) to receive either intravenous placebo and subcutaneous sumatriptan 12 mg (i.e. two 6-mg injections separated by 1 hour) or intravenous erenumab 140 mg and subcutaneous sumatriptan 12 mg. Blood pressure was measured pre-dose and at prespecified times post-dose. The primary endpoint was individual time-weighted averages of mean arterial pressure, measured from 0 hours to 2.5 hours after the first dose of sumatriptan. Pharmacokinetic parameters for sumatriptan were evaluated by calculating geometric mean ratios (erenumab and sumatriptan/placebo and sumatriptan). Adverse events and anti-erenumab antibodies were also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 34 subjects were randomized and included in the analysis. Least squares mean (standard error) time-weighted averages of mean arterial pressure were 87.4 (1.0) mmHg for the placebo and sumatriptan group and 87.4 (1.2) mmHg for the erenumab and sumatriptan group. Mean difference in mean arterial pressure between groups was -0.04 mmHg (90% confidence interval: -2.2, 2.1). Geometric mean ratio estimates for maximum plasma concentration of sumatriptan was 0.95 (90% confidence interval: 0.82, 1.09), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to 6 hours was 0.98 (90% confidence interval: 0.93, 1.03), and AUC from time 0 to infinity was 1.00 (90% confidence interval: 0.96, 1.05). No clinically relevant safety findings for co-administration of sumatriptan and erenumab were identified. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of erenumab and sumatriptan had no additional effect on resting blood pressure or on pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02741310.

Risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and mortality in patients with migraine receiving prophylactic treatments: An observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: This study quantified risks of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and mortality events among patients with migraine receiving prophylaxis. METHODS: Patients with migraine aged 18-65 years were identified from 2010 through 2015 within a United States administrative claims database. Topiramate initiators during follow-up were propensity score-matched separately to anticonvulsant, cardiovascular treatment, antidepressant, and other prophylactic treatment initiators. Incident outcomes were identified, and hazard ratios were calculated comparing outcome occurrence among topiramate initiators relative to each comparator. A case-control analysis was nested within the full migraine cohort, and odds ratios quantified the association between outcomes and use or non-use of individual prophylactic treatments (anticonvulsants, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, beta blockers, antihypertensives, tricyclic antidepressants, and other prophylactic treatments). RESULTS: The cohort included 119,243 patients with migraine. The matched topiramate initiators had a lower mortality risk versus antidepressant (hazard ratio: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.83) and anticonvulsant initiators (hazard ratio: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.84). In the case-control analysis, increased risks of several outcomes were observed with all prophylactic treatments relative to non-use of that treatment (odds ratios range from 1.54 to 7.90, and 95% CIs exclude 1.0) except for topiramate and calcium channel blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Although increased risks for several outcomes were observed with certain prophylactic treatments, the treatments other than topiramate likely represent markers for outcome risk factors that developed or progressed after cohort entry, rather than being a direct effect of the treatments. Factors including migraine severity, frequency, and other treatment indications should be considered in future migraine prophylactic treatment safety assessments.

Pregnancy, Birth, Neonatal, and Postnatal Neurological Outcomes After Pregnancy With Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of migraine is high during the reproductive age. Although migraine often improves during pregnancy, the risk of adverse pregnancy, birth, neonatal, and neurological outcomes in mother and offspring remains poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the associations between maternal migraine and risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes in the mother, and birth, neonatal and postnatal outcomes in the offspring. METHODS: We used Danish population registries to assemble a cohort of pregnancies among women with migraine and an age- and conception year-matched comparison cohort of pregnancies among women without migraine. The study period was 2005-2012. We computed adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for pregnancy and birth outcomes and adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) for neonatal and postnatal outcomes, adjusting for age, preconception medical history, and preconception reproductive history. RESULTS: We identified 22,841 pregnancies among women with migraine and 228,324 matched pregnancies among women without migraine. Migraine was associated with an increased risk of pregnancy-associated hypertension disorders (aPR: 1.50 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.39-1.61]) and miscarriage (aPR: 1.10 [95% CI: 1.05-1.15]). Migraine was associated with an increased prevalence of low birth weight (aPR: 1.14 [95% CI: 1.06-1.23]), preterm birth (aPR: 1.21 [95% CI: 1.13-1.30]) and cesarean delivery (aPR: 1.20 [95% CI: 1.15-1.25]), but not of small for gestational age offspring (aPR: 0.94 [95% CI: 0.88-0.99]) and birth defects (aPR: 1.01 [95% CI: 0.93-1.09]). Offspring prenatally exposed to maternal migraine had elevated risks of several outcomes in the neonatal and postnatal period, including intensive care unit admission (aRR: 1.22 [95% CI: 1.03-1.45]), hospitalization (aRR: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.06-1.18]), dispensed prescriptions (aRR: 1.34 [95% CI: 1.24-1.45]), respiratory distress syndrome (aRR: 1.20 [95% CI: 1.02-1.42]), and febrile seizures (aRR: 1.27 [95% CI: 1.03-1.57), but not of death (aRR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.43-1.04]) and cerebral palsy (aRR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.51-1.94]). CONCLUSIONS: Women with migraine and their offspring have greater risks of several adverse pregnancy outcomes than women without migraine.

Regulations Governing Medicines for Maternal and Neonatal Health: A Landscape Assessment.

Limited evidence related to the safety or efficacy of medicines in pregnancy and during breastfeeding is available to inform patients and healthcare professionals. Understanding the current regulatory landscape in the clinical trial and postmarketing settings is critical to facilitate the development of applicable processes and tools for studying medicine use during pregnancy and breastfeeding and comply with health authority expectations. This review summarizes key findings from a landscape assessment of regulations, guidelines, and guidance on the use of medicines in pregnancy and breastfeeding issued by health authorities in various territories (including the Americas, Europe, Africa, and Asia Pacific) and outlines relevant initiatives undertaken by health authorities, academic institutions, industry consortia, and public-private organizations. While global pharmacovigilance legislation regarding medication use during pregnancy and breastfeeding exists and continues to evolve, the landscape assessment revealed that there is a lack of global legislative harmonization in both the clinical trial and postmarketing surveillance settings and regulatory gaps still exist in many countries/regions. Despite ongoing efforts from health authorities and public and private organizations, intensive efforts for legislation harmonization and stakeholder collaboration are required to improve the current environment of medication safety in pregnancy and breastfeeding.

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.