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.

Prevalence of FRAX risk factors and the osteoporosis treatment gap among women ≥ 70 years of age in routine primary care across 8 countries in Europe.

We studied whether elderly women at risk for fractures receive primary care treatment to prevent fracture. We found that across Europe, women at risk are often not identified, and less than half of such women receive appropriate treatment. Finally, women diagnosed with osteoporosis are much more likely to receive treatment. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between risk factors for fragility fracture (FF) and osteoporosis (OP) treatment gap in elderly women across Europe, and compare the prevalence of risk factors between countries. METHODS: Demographic and clinical information was collected from women ≥ 70 years visiting primary care physicians in Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the UK. Increased risk of FF was defined by the presence of 1 or more criteria (history of fracture, 10-year fracture probability, or T-score ≤ - 2.5). RESULTS: There were 3798 women in total. Treatment gap (proportion at increased risk of FF not receiving treatment for OP) varied from 53.1 to 90.8% across countries, and the proportion of patients at increased risk of FF varied from 41.2 to 76.1%. Across countries, less than 50% of patients with increased risk of FF had a diagnosis of OP. Previous fracture was the most common risk factor, with similar prevalence across most countries; other risk factors varied widely. The treatment gap was reduced in patients with an OP diagnosis in all countries, but this reduction varied from 36.5 to 79.4%. The countries with the lowest rates of bone densitometry scans (Poland, France, and Germany; 8.3-12.3%) also had the highest treatment gap (82.2 to 90.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights differences across Europe in clinical risk factors for fracture, rates of densitometry scanning, and the rates of OP diagnosis. More emphasis is needed on risk assessment to improve the identification and treatment of elderly women at risk for fracture.

Inspiratory flow rate, not type of incentive spirometry device, influences chest wall motion in healthy individuals.

This study investigated the effect of flow rates and spirometer type on chest wall motion in healthy individuals. Twenty-one healthy volunteers completed breathing trials to either two times tidal volume (2xV(T)) or inspiratory capacity (IC) at high, low, or natural flow rates, using a volume- or flow-oriented spirometer. The proportions of rib cage movement to tidal volume (%RC/V(T)), chest wall diameters, and perceived level of exertion (RPE) were compared. Low and natural flow rates resulted in significantly lower %RC/V(T) compared to high flow rate trials (p=0.001) at 2xV(T). Low flow trials also resulted in significantly less chest wall motion in the upper anteroposterior direction than high and natural flow rates (p<0.001). At IC, significantly greater movement occurred in the abdominal lateral direction during low flow compared to high and natural flow trials (both p<0.003). RPE was lower for the low flow trials compared to high flow trials at IC and 2xV(T) (p<0.01). In healthy individuals, inspiratory flow (not device type) during incentive spirometry determines the resultant breathing pattern. High flow rates result in greater chest wall motion than low flow rates.