Assessment of immunogenicity from galcanezumab phase 3 trials in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: This analysis characterizes the immunogenicity profile of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its activity, in phase 3 migraine trials. METHODS: Immunogenicity data were analyzed from baseline and double-blind, placebo-controlled phases of the 3-month chronic migraine study REGAIN, the 6-month episodic migraine studies EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2, and from baseline and open-label phases of the 12-month chronic and episodic migraine Study CGAJ. The incidence of baseline antidrug antibodies, treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies, neutralizing antidrug antibodies, and the effect of antidrug antibody titer on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed. The relationship between antidrug antibody status and efficacy was explored using average change in monthly migraine headache days. Safety analyses assessed the potential relationship between treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies and hypersensitivity events or adverse events related to injection sites. FINDINGS: Across studies, 5.9-11.2% of patients had baseline antidrug antibodies. The incidence of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies was 2.6-12.4% in the galcanezumab group and 0.5-1.7% in the placebo group. The majority of treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were detected approximately 3-6 months after first study drug dose. Overall, the observed antidrug antibody titer did not impact galcanezumab concentrations, calcitonin gene-related peptide concentrations, or galcanezumab efficacy. There was no evidence that hypersensitivity events or adverse events related to injection sites were mediated by treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies. INTERPRETATION: These data showed that immunogenicity did not impact galcanezumab concentrations, calcitonin gene-related peptide concentrations, or the efficacy and hypersensitivity profile of galcanezumab in patients with migraine.

Clinical Trial Drug Safety Assessment for Studies and Submissions Impacted by COVID-19.

Abstract-In this article, we provide guidance on how safety analyses and reporting of clinical trial safety data may need to be modified, given potential impact from the COVID-19 pandemic. Impact could include missed visits, alternative methods for assessments (such as virtual visits), alternative locations for assessments (such as local labs), and study drug interruptions. Starting from the safety analyses typically included in Clinical Study Reports for Phase 2-4 clinical trials and integrated submission documents, we assess what modifications might be needed. If the impact from COVID-19 affects treatment arms equally, analyses of adverse events from controlled data can, to a large extent, remain unchanged. However, interpretation of summaries from uncontrolled data (summaries that include open-label extension data) will require even more caution than usual. Special consideration will be needed for safety topics of interest, especially events expected to have a higher incidence due to a COVID-19 infection or due to quarantine or travel restrictions (e.g., depression). Analyses of laboratory measurements may need to be modified to account for the combination of measurements from local and central laboratories.

Effective Partnering in Conducting Benefit-Risk Patient Preference Studies: Perspectives From a Patient Advocacy Organization, a Pharmaceutical Company, and Academic Stated-Preference Researchers.

BACKGROUND: Formal incorporation of patients' perspectives is becoming increasingly important in medical product development and decision making. This article shares practical advice regarding how patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic experts in stated-preference research can effectively partner on benefit-risk patient preference studies. METHODS: The authors partnered on a benefit-risk patient preference study related to the treatment of psoriasis. The authors from Duke Clinical Research Institute also share their experiences in collaborating with numerous other organizations in conducting benefit-risk patient preference studies. RESULTS: Upon initiation of the study partnership with appropriate experts, training is important to ensure all collaborators have a common understanding of the methodology, what objectives stated-preference methods can support, and expectations for the project. To the extent possible, partners should align on and document relevant clinical and logistical details prior to study implementation. During study implementation, partners should use good communication practices and document and maintain a record of any changes to the original plan. Presentation of the study results should be tailored to the particular audience, with the appropriate partner leading the presentation based on its format and audience. CONCLUSION: Partners from patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia can effectively collaborate on benefit-risk patient preference studies with sufficient planning and ongoing communication. This article is a call for action for other organizations to engage in sharing of experiences regarding effective partnering in quantifying patient preferences in medical product development.

Assessment of Pancreas Safety in the Development Program of Once-Weekly GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Dulaglutide.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of acute pancreatitis during treatment with glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist dulaglutide, placebo, and active comparators across phase 2/3 dulaglutide trials. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 6,005 patients with type 2 diabetes participated (dulaglutide group N = 4,006 [dose range 0.1-3.0 mg]; active comparator group [metformin, sitagliptin, exenatide twice daily, insulin glargine] N = 1,541; placebo group N = 703; 245 placebo-treated patients subsequently received dulaglutide or sitagliptin and were also included in these groups) for up to 104 weeks. The following events were adjudicated: investigator-reported pancreatitis, adverse events (AEs) of severe or serious abdominal pain of unknown etiology, and confirmed asymptomatic increases in pancreatic enzymes ≥3× the upper limit of normal range. RESULTS: Overall, 203 events from 151 patients underwent adjudication (dulaglutide group n = 108; comparator group including placebo n = 43). Acute pancreatitis was confirmed by adjudication in seven patients (dulaglutide n = 3, placebo n = 1, sitagliptin n = 3). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were as follows: dulaglutide group 0.85 patients/1,000 patient-years, placebo group 3.52 patients/1,000 patient-years, sitagliptin group 4.71 patients/1,000 patient-years. No events of pancreatitis were confirmed by adjudication in patients treated with exenatide twice daily, metformin, or glargine. Increases in median values of lipase and pancreatic amylase within the normal range were observed with all treatments except glargine. These changes were not associated with AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The exposure-adjusted incidence rate of acute pancreatitis in dulaglutide-treated patients was similar to the rates with placebo, with few reported cases during the entire program.