Medication overuse in a subgroup analysis of phase 3 placebo-controlled studies of galcanezumab in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Acute medication overuse is prevalent in patients with migraine. METHODS: In three phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies, patients with episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) or chronic migraine (REGAIN) were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo or galcanezumab 120 or 240 mg for 3 or 6 months. This subgroup analysis evaluated mean changes in the number of monthly migraine headache days in each treatment among patients with versus without baseline acute medication overuse via mixing modelling with repeated measures. RESULTS: The percentages of patients with baseline medication overuse in placebo, galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg groups, respectively, were 19.4%, 17.3%, and 19.3% for EVOLVE-1/-2 (pooled; post hoc), and 63.4%, 64.3%, and 64.1% for REGAIN (a priori). Both galcanezumab doses demonstrated significant improvement compared with placebo for overall least squares mean change in monthly migraine headache days in patients with baseline medication overuse in both the episodic and chronic migraine studies (p ≤ 0.001). Furthermore, both galcanezumab doses reduced average monthly medication overuse rates compared to placebo (p < 0.001) in both patient populations with medication overuse at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab appears to be effective for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in patients who overuse acute medications.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02614183, NCT02614196, and NCT02614261.

Randomized, controlled trial of lasmiditan over four migraine attacks: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups - lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity. RESULTS: Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg (p < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks.Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810.

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes in Adult Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine Treated With Galcanezumab: Data From Three Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP), pulse, electrocardiogram (ECG), and clinical cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated for up to 6 months with galcanezumab compared to placebo were evaluated. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide, a potent microvascular vasodilator, has a hypothesized protective role in CV health. Increased CV risks have been reported in patients with migraine. METHODS: In 2 similarly designed episodic migraine 6-month studies and 1 chronic migraine 3-month study, data from patients randomized (1:1:2) to subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following initial 240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg/month or placebo were pooled. Treatment comparisons for cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (CV TEAE) and categorical and mean changes in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Mean changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the analysis of covariance model. RESULTS: Overall, among galcanezumab 120 mg (n = 705) and 240 mg (n = 730), and placebo (n = 1451) groups, the percentage of patients reporting ≥1 CV TEAE was low and was similar between the galcanezumab 120 mg (2.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5,1.5) and galcanezumab 240 mg (3.3%; OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7,1.9), and placebo (2.9%) groups. The frequency of any individual CV TEAE, broad or narrow term, was ≤1.4%. The CV-related serious adverse events that occurred in the galcanezumab 240 mg group (n = 3; acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and placebo group (n = 3; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction) were not considered treatment related. Four placebo- and 1 galcanezumab-treated patient discontinued due to a CV TEAE. Least squares mean and categorical changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and QT interval corrected using Fridericia's correction were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 6-month treatment trial, the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients that reported CV TEAEs or serious adverse events were low and similar between groups with few discontinuations. Thus, no clinically meaningful treatment group differences were observed for changes in BP, pulse, or ECG parameters. Additional longer-term studies in a broader and larger cohort are required to better characterize CV safety.

Evaluation of 2-Hour Post-Dose Efficacy of Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Difficult-to-Treat Migraine Attacks.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors predicting response (2-hour headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom) to lasmiditan based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. Further, efficacy specifically in difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics or attack characteristics (ie, historically considered less responsive to certain acute therapies) subgroups was analyzed. BACKGROUND: Knowledge of factors associated with a positive or negative response to acute treatment would be useful to practitioners prescribing acute treatments for migraine. Additionally, practitioners and patients would benefit from understanding the efficacy of lasmiditan specifically in subgroups of patients with migraine disease characteristics and migraine attack characteristics historically associated with decreased pain threshold, reduced efficacy of acute treatment, or increased burden of migraine. METHODS: Pooled analyses were completed from 2 Phase 3 double-blind clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Data from baseline to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to assess efficacy based on patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. A total of 3981 patients comprising the intent-to-treat population were treated with placebo (N = 1130), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 598), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1133), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1120). Data were analyzed for the following efficacy measures at 2 hours: headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom. RESULTS: None of the analyzed subgroups based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, or migraine attack characteristics predicted headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom response at 2 hours following lasmiditan treatment (interaction P ≥ .1). For the difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics subgroups (defined as those with ≥24 headache days in the past 3 months, duration of migraine history ≥20 years, severe disability [Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥21], obesity [≥30 kg/m2 ], and history of psychiatric disorder), single doses of lasmiditan (100 or 200 mg) were significantly more effective than placebo (P ≤ .002) in achieving both endpoints. Headache pain freedom response rates for higher doses of lasmiditan were numerically greater than for lower doses of lasmiditan. For the difficult-to-treat migraine attack subgroups, patients with severe headache, co-existent nausea at the time of treatment, or who delayed treatment for ≥2 hours from the time of headache onset, both endpoint response rates after lasmiditan 100 or 200 mg were significantly greater than after placebo. Among those who delayed treatment for ≥4 hours from the time of headache onset, headache pain freedom response rates for the 200 mg dose of lasmiditan met statistical significance vs placebo (32.4% vs 15.9%; odds ratio = 2.7 [1.17, 6.07]; P = .018). While the predictors of response interaction test showed similar efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo across subgroups defined by baseline functional disability (mild, moderate, or needs complete bed rest) at the time of treatment, analyses of lasmiditan efficacy within the subgroup "needs complete bed rest" appeared to show less efficacy (eg, in the 200 mg vs placebo group, 25.9% vs 18.5%; odds ratio = 1.56 [0.96, 2.53]; P = .070). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy of lasmiditan 200 and 100 mg for headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 hours post-treatment was generally not influenced by the individual patient characteristics, migraine disease history, or migraine attack characteristics that were analyzed. In the analyses of difficult-to-treat subgroups, patients receiving lasmiditan achieved greater responses (2-hour headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom) vs placebo recipients.

The Influence of Migraine on Driving: Current Understanding, Future Directions, and Potential Implications of Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To review the published findings relevant to migraine and driving performance, with an intent to encourage discussion on research which may broaden understanding in this area and help educate healthcare providers and their patients. BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle crashes result in more than 35,000 deaths and more than 2 million injuries annually in the United States. Migraine is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world, and many symptoms associated with migraine attacks have the potential to negatively influence driving ability. METHODS: We reviewed the published findings related to migraine and driving performance. Study findings relevant to symptoms of migraine and their potential effect on driving were also reviewed. This required a more expansive exploration of the literature beyond migraine, for example, review of the literature relating to the effect of pain, sleepiness, visual disturbances, or vertigo on driving. Finally, the potential effects of treatment for migraine on driving were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature on the effect of migraine on driving performance is sparse and, in general published studies on the topic have a number of limitations. Based on review of the literature pertaining to other disorders, it seems feasible that some symptoms occurring as part of the migraine attack could impact driving performance, although formal study in this area is lacking. Many of the approved treatments for migraine have the potential to impact driving, yet this has not been specifically studied, and the extent to which these risks are communicated to patients is not clear. CONCLUSION: The impact of migraine on driving performance has been largely neglected, with few studies specifically designed to address the topic, and relevant studies were generally small with limited control of confounders. This area requires more focus, given a potential for impact on road safety.

Effects of lasmiditan on simulated driving performance: Results of two randomized, blinded, crossover studies with placebo and active controls.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of lasmiditan, an oral, centrally-penetrant, selective serotonin 1F (5-HT1F ) receptor agonist developed for the acute treatment of migraine, on simulated driving. METHODS: Healthy adult volunteers enrolled in two randomized, placebo and active comparator-controlled, crossover studies. Study 1 (N = 90) tested lasmiditan (50-, 100-, 200-mg), alprazolam (1-mg), and placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Study 2 (N = 68) tested lasmiditan (100-, 200-mg), diphenhydramine (50-mg, administered 2 hr pre-assessments), and placebo at 8, 12 and 24 hr post-dose. Driving performance was assessed using a validated driving simulator employing a 100 km driving scenario. Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of lane position control, was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Assay sensitivity was confirmed by increased SDLP for active comparators at 1.5- and 8-hr time points. Lasmiditan doses showed significant driving impairment versus placebo at 1.5 hr post-dose. Lasmiditan doses were non-inferior to placebo at 8 hr. Driving impairment was concentration-dependent at 1.5 hr but not at 8 hr. Common adverse events were central nervous system-related and mild-to-moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was associated with impaired simulated driving performance at 1.5 hr post-dose, but showed no clinically meaningful impairment at 8 hr post-dose.

Safety findings from Phase 3 lasmiditan studies for acute treatment of migraine: Results from SAMURAI and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the safety profile of lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist without vasoconstrictive activity being developed as an acute therapy for migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were Phase 3 double-blind studies of patients with migraine, randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo to be taken within 4 hours of onset of migraine pain. Safety data from the studies were integrated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring within 48 hours of first dose) were considered in the analyses. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 1262 patients assigned placebo, and 654, 1265, and 1258 assigned lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, respectively. There were no deaths; serious adverse events were reported for seven patients (placebo, n = 2 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 3 [0.2%]). Patients reporting ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse events were: Placebo, n = 174 (13.5%); lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 166 (25.4%); lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 458 (36.2%); and lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 510 (40.6%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, muscular weakness and hypoesthesia. There were no ischemic events. CONCLUSIONS: As a centrally-penetrant drug, lasmiditan use was associated with neurologic treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Sustained responses to lasmiditan: Results from post-hoc analyses of two Phase 3 randomized clinical trials for acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Sustained pain freedom is an important attribute of acute migraine therapies for patients and physicians. Here we report efficacy of the centrally penetrant, highly selective, 5-HT1F agonist lasmiditan on sustained pain freedom and other outcomes at 24 and 48 hours post-dose. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the similarly designed, Phase 3, double-blind studies SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174) were pooled to more precisely estimate efficacy effects in these post-hoc analyses. In both studies, inclusion criteria were 3-8 migraine attacks per month and Migraine Disability Assessment Score of ≥ 11 (at least moderate disability). Patients were randomized equally to lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg (50 mg only in SPARTAN), or to placebo. The study drug was to be taken within 4 hours of onset of pain for non-improving headache of at least moderate severity. Sustained pain freedom was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and at the given time point (24 or 48 hours) post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. Sustained responses were assessed similarly for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free, and disability-free outcomes. For comparisons with previously published data on other acute medications, an additional endpoint of modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and no moderate-to-severe headache at 24 hours post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. RESULTS: Significantly higher proportions of patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo achieved headache pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose: 200 mg: 35.6%; 100 mg: 29.9%; 50 mg: 28.6%; placebo: 18.3% (all p < 0.001). Sustained pain freedom was significantly higher in patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 hours: 200 mg: 21.2%; 100 mg: 16.9%; 50 mg: 17.4%; placebo: 10.3% (all p < 0.01); and at 48 hours: 200 mg: 18.4%; 100 mg: 15.2%; 50 mg: 14.9%; placebo: 9.6% (all p < 0.05). Similar sustained benefits of lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 and 48 hours were noted for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. Modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was also observed in significantly higher proportions of lasmiditan-treated patients versus placebo: 200 mg: 27.0%; 100 mg: 21.7%; 50 mg: 21.7%; placebo: 12.9% (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Sustained responses at 24 and 48 hours were noted in significantly more patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo for several efficacy outcomes including pain freedom, most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER NUMBERS: SAMURAI: NCT02439320; SPARTAN: NCT02605174.

Analysis of Initial Nonresponders to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine: Results From the EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the likelihood of response with continued galcanezumab treatment in patients with episodic or chronic migraine without initial clinical improvement. BACKGROUND: A percentage of patients with migraine may require additional time on pharmacotherapy but discontinue treatment prematurely. Additionally, recognizing when continued treatment is unlikely to provide improvement limits unnecessary exposure. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of response after continued galcanezumab treatment was conducted in a subset of patients with episodic (N = 879) and chronic (N = 555) migraine who did not achieve "good" early improvement (episodic, ≥50% reduction in baseline migraine headache days [MHD] and chronic, ≥30% reduction) after 1 month of dosing (NR-1; episodic, n = 450 and chronic, n = 306). This subset was categorized by level of reduction in MHD during 1 month of treatment: "modest" (>30% to <50% fewer MHD for episodic and >10% to <30% fewer MHD for chronic), "limited" (episodic only; >10% to ≤30% fewer MHD), or "minimal/no" early improvement (≤10% fewer MHD to ≤10% more MHD), or "worsening" (>10% more MHD). The percentages of patients having "better" (≥75% fewer MHD for episodic and ≥50% for chronic), "good," or "little-to-no" (≤10% fewer MHD) response during the remaining treatment period were calculated for each category. Similarly, the subset of NR-1 patients who did not achieve "good" early improvement after 2 months of treatment (NR-2; episodic, n = 290 and chronic, n = 240) were categorized by level of their average monthly reduction across 1 and 2 months using similar categories. RESULTS: Of NR-1 patients with episodic migraine having "modest" early improvement, 62% (96/155) achieved "good" and 20% (31/155) achieved "better" responses with continued treatment. A percentage of patients with "limited" (43%; 46/108) or "minimal/no" (34%; 29/85) early improvement, or "worsening" (20%; 20/102) achieved a "good" response after continued treatment. A percentage of NR-1 patients with chronic migraine having "modest" early improvement achieved "good" (38%; 44/116) and "better" (13%; 15/116) responses with continued treatment. A "good" response was achieved for a percentage of patients with "minimal/no" early improvement (17%; 23/133). Similar patterns were observed for the NR-2 subset, though percentages were lower. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab-treated patients with episodic or chronic migraine without response following 1 or 2 months of treatment appear to have a reasonable likelihood of continued improvement in months following initial treatment and this opportunity is more likely in patients showing greater early improvements. While a small percentage of patients with episodic or chronic migraine who experienced worsening in the number of MHD following initial treatment responded with continued treatment, most do not show substantial reduction in MHD. Overall benefit of therapy should be determined collaboratively between the patient and physician.

Onset of Efficacy Following Oral Treatment With Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Integrated Results From 2 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To expand on available information on the efficacy of oral lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine with particular focus on the timing of the effect and on its impact on migraine-associated symptoms. BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan is a novel selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist that lacks vasoconstrictive activity. In 2 phase 3 studies, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, lasmiditan met primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours following initial dose. METHODS: Integrated analyses were completed from 2 phase 3 clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Baseline data and data collected every 30 minutes up to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to determine the onset of efficacy. A total of 5236 patients were randomized to be treated with placebo (N = 1493), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 750), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1498), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1495). Data were analyzed to determine the onset of improvement for the following efficacy measures: pain freedom, most bothersome symptom freedom, pain relief, freedom from associated individual symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea), total migraine freedom (defined as pain freedom and freedom from associated symptoms), and freedom from migraine-related functional disability. Time to meaningful headache relief and time to first become pain free were also analyzed. RESULTS: Significantly higher rates of pain freedom (100 mg, 10.0%, P = .012; 200 mg, 15.5%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.0%) and total migraine freedom (100 mg, 8.9%, P = .017; 200 mg, 12.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 6.1%) were achieved starting at 60 minutes in 100- and 200-mg lasmiditan-treated groups compared with placebo group. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom (100 mg, 11.1%, P = .015; 200 mg, 13.0%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.9%), and pain relief (100 mg, 17.5%, P = .007; 200 mg, 19.1%, P < .001; Placebo, 13.4%) were significantly higher starting as early as 30 minutes in lasmiditan 100- and 200-mg lasmiditan-treated groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 200-mg lasmiditan-treated group achieved freedom from photophobia (13.7%, P = .005; Placebo, 9.2%) and phonophobia (17.4%, P = .042; Placebo, 13.4%) starting at 30 minutes. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the 200-mg lasmiditan-treated group achieved freedom from migraine-related functional disability starting at 60 minutes (16.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 11.1%). All efficacy measures, except for freedom from nausea, were statistically significant after lasmiditan treatment (50, 100, or 200 mg) compared with placebo at 90 and 120 minutes. Finally, patients taking lasmiditan had a higher likelihood of achieving meaningful headache relief and becoming headache pain free within 24 hours compared with those taking placebo (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lasmiditan for a migraine attack reported an earlier onset of efficacy compared with those treated with placebo. Some of the efficacy measures such as pain relief demonstrated improvement as early as the first assessment at 30 minutes after 100- or 200-mg lasmiditan treatment.

Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: In addition to the increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and CV events associated with migraine, patients with migraine can also present with a number of CV risk factors (CVRFs). Existing treatment options can be limited due to contraindications, increased burden associated with monitoring, or patient avoidance of side effects. Safe and effective migraine treatment options are needed for patients with migraine and a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease or with increased risk for CV events. This analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral lasmiditan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist, in acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients with CVRFs. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults treating a single migraine attack with lasmiditan 50, 100, or 200 mg. Both studies included patients with CVRFs, and SPARTAN allowed patients with coronary artery disease, clinically significant arrhythmia, or uncontrolled hypertension. Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in subgroups of patients with differing levels of CVRFs are reported. For efficacy analyses, logistic regression was used to assess treatment-by-subgroup interactions. For safety analyses, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association evaluated treatment comparisons; Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio assessed significant treatment effects. RESULTS: In this pooled analysis, a total of 4439 patients received ≥1 dose of study drug. A total of 3500 patients (78.8%) had ≥1 CVRF, and 1833 patients (41.3%) had ≥2 CVRFs at baseline. Both trials met the primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h. The presence of CVRFs did not affect efficacy results. There was a low frequency of likely CV treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (lasmiditan, 30 [0.9%]; placebo, 5 [0.4%]). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely CV TEAEs in either the absence or presence of any CVRFs. The only likely CV TEAE seen across patients with ≥1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, or ≥ 4 CVRFs was palpitations. CONCLUSIONS: When analyzed by the presence of CVRFs, there was no statistical difference in lasmiditan efficacy or the frequency of likely CV TEAEs. Despite the analysis being limited by a single-migraine-attack design, the lack of differences in efficacy and safety with increasing numbers of CVRFs indicates that lasmiditan might be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with CVRFs. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), registered 18 March 2015 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02605174 (SPARTAN), registered 11 November 2015.

Potential Impact of Slowing Disease Progression in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease on Patient Quality of Life, Caregiver Time, and Total Societal Costs: Estimates Based on Findings from GERAS-US Study.

Background: Impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression on patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL), caregiver time, and societal costs is not well characterized in early AD. Objective: To assess the association of change in cognition with HRQoL, caregiver time, and societal costs over 36 months, and estimate the impact of slowing disease progression on these outcomes. Methods: This post-hoc analysis included patients with amyloid-positive mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild AD dementia (MILD AD) from the 36-month GERAS-US study. Disease progression was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination score. Change in outcomes associated with slowing AD progression was estimated using coefficients from generalized linear models. Results: At baseline, 300 patients had MCI and 317 had MILD AD. Observed natural progression over 36 months was associated with: 5.1 point decline in the Bath Assessment of Subjective Quality of Life in Dementia (BASQID) score (for HRQoL), increase in 1,050 hours of total caregiver time, and $8,504 total societal costs for MCI; 6.6 point decline in the BASQID score, increase in 1,929 hours of total caregiver time, and $12,795 total societal costs for MILD AD per person. Slowing AD progression by 30% could result in per person savings in HRQoL decline, total caregiver time, and total societal costs: for MCI: 1.5 points, 315 hours, and $2,638; for MILD AD: 2.0 points, 579 hours, and $3,974. Conclusions: Slowing AD progression over 36 months could slow decline in HRQoL and save caregiver time and societal cost in patients with MCI and MILD AD.

Serotonin syndrome in the acute treatment landscape of migraine: the lasmiditan experience.

Background: Serotonin syndrome (SS) symptoms overlap with adverse events associated with lasmiditan, a 5-HT (serotonin)1F receptor agonist for acute treatment of migraine. Because SS symptoms are heterogeneous, diagnosis can be challenging, and potential cases observed with lasmiditan treatment led to questions about SS pathophysiology. Here, we provide an overview of the potential risk of SS based on experience with lasmiditan. Methods: Results of eight phase 2 and phase 3 lasmiditan trials (n = 5,916) and a controlled intravenous trial of lasmiditan (n = 88) were analyzed for symptomatology consistent with SS. Post-marketing surveillance data from lasmiditan's US launch date (January 2020) until data cut-off (April 2021) were also examined. Established Sternbach and Hunter diagnostic criteria were used for formal determination of SS. Results: Of 6,004 lasmiditan-treated clinical trial patients, 15 reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event consistent with signs and symptom(s) of SS. After review, one case met Sternbach and Hunter criteria, two cases potentially met Sternbach criteria, and three cases reported as SS had limited/no information to determine if either criterion was met. During post-marketing surveillance (approximately 13,400 lasmiditan prescriptions), 17 cases with symptom complexes consistent with SS were reported; 3/17 cases had adequate case descriptions to apply predefined criteria. Of these, two met Sternbach and Hunter criteria, and one met Sternbach criteria. Conclusion: Awareness of clinical symptomatology and diagnostic criteria of SS can help clinicians with recognition of rare instances of SS that may occur with lasmiditan. Clinical trial registration: NCT03670810, NCT00384774, NCT00883051, NCT02565186.

The Association Between the Occurrence of Common Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events and Efficacy Outcomes After Lasmiditan Treatment of a Single Migraine Attack: Secondary Analyses from Four Pooled Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: In controlled clinical trials, compared with placebo, a significantly greater proportion of participants using lasmiditan to treat a migraine attack achieved 2-h pain freedom (PF) and experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). OBJECTIVE: To better inform clinicians about treatment expectations by evaluating the association between TEAEs and efficacy outcomes after lasmiditan treatment. METHODS: Pooled data from SAMURAI, SPARTAN, MONONOFU, and CENTURION were analyzed. A common TEAE (CTEAE) was defined as occurring in ≥ 2% in the overall population. Central nervous system (CNS)-CTEAEs were based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. RESULTS: At 2 h, a significantly higher percentage of lasmiditan 200 mg-treated participants who achieved PF experienced ≥ 1 CTEAE than non-responders who continued to experience moderate/severe pain (48.2% vs. 28.7%, respectively). Correspondingly, a significantly higher percentage of lasmiditan 200 mg-treated participants who experienced ≥ 1 CTEAE achieved PF at 2 h than those who did not (39.0% vs. 30.2%, respectively). Similar results were generally observed with individual CNS-CTEAEs, but for non-CNS-CTEAEs, this pattern was less evident or in the opposite direction. No consistent differences were observed for migraine-related functional disability freedom. The percentage of participants with improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) was greater with a CNS-CTEAE versus no CNS-CTEAE. CONCLUSIONS: Those who had PF at 2 h were more likely to experience a CNS-CTEAE, and those with CNS-CTEAEs were more likely to experience PF. The occurrence of CTEAEs did not seem to negatively affect disability freedom or PGIC. GOV REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), MONONOFU (NCT03962738), CENTURION (NCT03670810), ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02439320, NCT02605174, NCT03962738, NCT03670810.

Assessing the Cost-effectiveness of a Hypothetical Disease-modifying Therapy With Limited Duration for the Treatment of Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials have produced promising results for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for Alzheimer's disease (AD); however, the evidence on their potential cost-effectiveness is limited. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical DMT with a limited treatment duration in AD. METHODS: We developed a Markov state-transition model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical DMT plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC alone among Americans living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD or mild AD. AD states included MCI due to AD, mild AD, moderate AD, severe AD, and death. A hypothetical DMT was assumed to confer a 30% reduction in progression from MCI and mild AD. The base case annual drug acquisition cost was assumed to be $56,000. Other medical and indirect costs were obtained from published literature or list prices. Utilities for patients and caregivers were obtained from the published literature and varied by AD state and care setting (community care or long-term care). We considered 3 DMT treatment strategies: (1) treatment administered until patients reached severe AD (continuous strategy), (2) treatment administered for a maximum duration of 18 months or when patients reached severe AD (fixed-duration strategy), and (3) 40% of patients discontinuing treatment at 6 months because of amyloid plaque clearance and the remaining patients continuing treatment until 18 months or until they reached severe AD (test-and-discontinue strategy). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. FINDINGS: From the health care sector perspective, continuous treatment with a hypothetical DMT versus BSC resulted in an ICER of $612,354 per QALY gained. The ICER decreased to $157,288 per QALY gained in the fixed-duration strategy, driven by large reductions in treatment costs. With 40% of patients discontinuing treatment at 6 months (test-and-discontinue strategy), the ICER was $125,631 per QALY gained. In sensitivity and scenario analyses, the ICER was the most sensitive to changes in treatment efficacy, treatment cost, and the initial population AD state distribution. From the modified societal perspective, ICERs were 6.3%, 20.4%, and 25.1% lower than those from the health care sector perspective for the continuous, fixed-duration, and test-and-discontinue strategies, respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Under a set of assumptions for annual treatment costs and the magnitude and duration of treatment efficacy, DMTs used for a limited duration may deliver value consistent with accepted US cost-effectiveness thresholds.

The current state of acute treatment for migraine in adults in the United States.

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder with substantial personal, social, and economic burden that affects 37 million people in the United States. Risk factors for migraine include age, sex, and genetics. The goal of acute treatment of migraine attacks is to stop the pain and associated symptoms of the migraine attack and return the patient to normal function. The acute treatment landscape for migraine has recently expanded beyond the standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, triptans, ergotamines, and combination therapies, to include neuromodulation devices, and recently approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and a serotonin (5-HT1F) receptor agonist. Unmet acute treatment needs still exist due to lack of efficacy, unwanted side effects, or contraindication to treatment. Effective treatment of migraine requires the clinician to assess the patient, make an accurate diagnosis, and then offer appropriate therapy based on the patient's medical history, comorbidities, and preferences, as well as published clinical evidence. The objective of this narrative review is to familiarize primary care clinicians with the variety of acute treatment options available in the United States today based on clinical trial findings, meta-analyses, evidence-based guidelines, and professional society consensus statements.

Abuse Potential of Lasmiditan: A Phase 1 Randomized, Placebo- and Alprazolam-Controlled Crossover Study.

Lasmiditan is a centrally penetrant, highly selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (serotonin) receptor 1F (5HT1F ) agonist under development as a novel therapy for acute treatment of migraine. A phase 1 randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled crossover study assessed the abuse potential of lasmiditan in adult recreational polydrug users. Following a qualification phase, subjects were randomized into treatment sequences, each consisting of 5 study treatments: placebo, alprazolam 2 mg, lasmiditan 100, 200 (lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg are proposed therapeutic doses), and 400 mg (supratherapeutic). The abuse potential of lasmiditan was investigated and compared with alprazolam and with placebo using the maximal effect score (Emax ) of the Drug-Liking Visual Analog Scale as the primary end point. Lasmiditan was not similar to placebo in drug-liking scores at all doses tested, with a maximum difference observed with the lasmiditan 400-mg dose (upper 90% confidence limit on difference in least-squares [LS] means > 14 for all lasmiditan doses). Drug-liking scores for lasmiditan 400 mg were not significantly different from alprazolam (lower 90% confidence limit on difference in LS means < 5), but drug-liking scores at lower doses (100 and 200 mg) were significantly different from alprazolam. During the treatment phase, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) increased with increasing dose of lasmiditan; all TEAEs reported with lasmiditan treatment were mild. Subjective drug-liking effects for lasmiditan versus placebo and versus alprazolam, and the safety and tolerability profile of lasmiditan suggest that lasmiditan has a low potential for abuse.

Improvement in Function after Lasmiditan Treatment: Post Hoc Analysis of Data from Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is associated with substantial functional impairment and affects many aspects of daily life. METHODS: Using data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies) and GLADIATOR (an open-label, phase 3 study enrolling patients who had completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN), we assessed the effects of lasmiditan on migraine-related functional disability at multiple time points from 0.5 to 48 h post dose by asking patients to rate how much the migraine was interfering with normal activities. Pooled data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (SAMURAI + SPARTAN) and data from GLADIATOR were analyzed using the intention-to-treat populations. RESULTS: For SPARTAN + SAMURAI, significantly more patients who received lasmiditan at any dose versus placebo reported freedom from migraine-related functional disability at every timepoint from 2 h post dose, and this difference persisted to 48 h (p < 0.05). Significant differences from placebo in freedom from migraine-related functional disability commenced at 1 h post dose for lasmiditan 200 mg, 1.5 h for lasmiditan 100 mg, and 2 h for lasmiditan 50 mg. Findings from GLADIATOR supported those from SAMURAI + SPARTAN. CONCLUSION: All doses of lasmiditan resulted in an improvement in migraine-related functional disability that persisted to 48 h. In SAMURAI + SPARTAN, a significant difference from placebo was observed as early as 1 h post dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), and GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).