Long-term treatment with lasmiditan in patients with migraine: post hoc analysis of treatment patterns and outcomes from the open-label extension of the CENTURION randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis was to gain new insights into the patient characteristics and other factors associated with lasmiditan usage and clinical outcomes under conditions resembling the real-world setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the 12-month, open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled CENTURION trial, which examined the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan as acute treatment across four migraine attacks. Patients completing the main study who treated ≥ 3 attacks could continue in the OLE. The initial lasmiditan dose was 100 mg, with dose adjustments to 50 mg or 200 mg allowed at the investigator's discretion. Patient and clinical characteristics were summarized by dosing pattern and completion status. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) frequency by number of doses. RESULTS: In total, 445 patients treated ≥ 1 migraine attacks with lasmiditan during the OLE, 321 of whom (72.1%) completed the study. Forty-seven percent of patients remained on the 100-mg initial dose during the OLE whereas 20.2% used both 100 mg and 50 mg, 30.6% used both 100 mg and 200 mg, and 6 (1.3%) used multiple dose levels. All dosing patterns were associated with clinical and patient-reported improvement; however, the 100-mg group had the highest proportion of patients reporting improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change - Migraine Headache Condition (56.5% vs 33.4%-52.2%). In comparison, all three groups that made dose adjustments had higher rates of completion compared to the 100-mg group (72.1%-83.3% vs 68.9%). The frequency of AEs decreased with continued use of lasmiditan. Concomitant triptans and lasmiditan use did not increase AE frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Based on high persistence and patient satisfaction rates, the 100-mg dose appears optimal for most patients. For those who adjusted dose levels, dose adjustments appeared beneficial to improve efficacy or tolerability, retaining patients on treatment. Collectively, the data suggest that patients who experienced efficacy continued to use lasmiditan regardless of the occurrence or frequency of AEs, and continued use appeared associated with fewer AEs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-001661-17; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03670810; registration date: September 12, 2018.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only. METHODS: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication. RESULTS: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

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.

A close association of freedom from pain, migraine-related functional disability, and other outcomes: results of a post hoc analysis of randomized lasmiditan studies SAMURAI and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: While pain freedom at 2 h is a key primary outcome for current trials for acute treatment of migraine, the relationship between the degree of head pain and other efficacy measures at 2 h has rarely been explored. Following lasmiditan treatment of a migraine attack with moderate or severe head pain, we contrast those who achieve pain freedom with those who achieve mild pain but not pain freedom 2 h post dosing. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled across studies and treatment arms from two Phase 3 trials comparing lasmiditan and placebo, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. This post hoc analysis assessed freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS), freedom from migraine-related functional disability (disability), and improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) in patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom compared to those who experienced 2 h mild pain. Mild pain differs from pain relief which is defined as either mild pain or pain freedom. RESULTS: Patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom (N = 913), in comparison with those with 2 h mild pain (N = 864), were significantly more likely to experience MBS freedom (91.9% vs. 44.9%), disability freedom (87.1% and 13.4%), and improved PGIC (86.5% and 31.5%) (p < 0.001 for all combinations). In addition, more patients who were pain free experienced both 2 h MBS freedom and 2 h functional disability freedom (83.6%) compared to those with mild pain (10.8%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with pain freedom who did not achieve either MBS or disability freedom (4.6%) was lower than in patients with mild pain (52.4%). Lastly, 55.2% of patients experienced mild pain before disability freedom compared to 72.1% who experienced pain freedom and disability freedom at the same time. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, at 2 h post treatment, patients who were pain free were more likely to achieve other outcomes including freedom from their MBS, freedom from migraine-related functional disability, and improved PGIC compared to those with mild pain, confirming that 2 h pain freedom is more robustly associated with other clinical outcomes than the 2 h mild pain endpoint. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ); SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ).

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine: Subgroup analyses by prior response to triptans.

BACKGROUND: Lasmiditan demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed Phase 3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Post-hoc integrated analyses evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to triptans and in those who were triptan naïve. METHODS: Subgroups of patients reporting an overall response of "good" or "poor/none" to the most recent use of a triptan at baseline (defined as good or insufficient responders, respectively) and a triptan-naïve subpopulation were derived from combined study participants randomized to receive lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg or 200 mg, or placebo, as the first dose. Outcomes including headache pain-freedom, most bothersome symptom-freedom, and headache pain relief 2 hours post-first dose of lasmiditan were compared with placebo. Treatment-by-subgroup analyses additionally investigated whether therapeutic benefit varied according to prior triptan response (good or insufficient). RESULTS: Regardless of triptan response, lasmiditan showed higher efficacy than placebo (most comparisons were statistically significant). Treatment-by-subgroup analyses found that the benefit over placebo of lasmiditan did not vary significantly between patients with a good response and those with an insufficient response to triptans. Lasmiditan also showed higher efficacy than placebo in triptan-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan demonstrated comparable efficacy in patients who reported a good or insufficient response to prior triptan use. Lasmiditan also showed efficacy in those who were triptan naïve. Lasmiditan may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

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.

Issues Impacting Adverse Event Frequency and Severity: Differences Between Randomized Phase 2 and Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Lasmiditan.

OBJECTIVE: We explore factors that may have contributed to differences in treatment-emergent adverse events in the phase 2 and phase 3 lasmiditan clinical trials. BACKGROUND: Phase 2 and phase 3 trials showed that the centrally penetrant 5-HT1F agonist, lasmiditan, was effective; higher frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) were seen in phase 2. METHODS: This work represents a hybrid of a review of primary documents and study reports with additional post hoc analyses. Protocols, informed consents, data collection forms, and methodologies were reviewed. This information was supplemented by results from the clinical study reports and post hoc analyses of individual patient data from each trial. RESULTS: For lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg, in phase 2, the incidence of ≥1 AE was 72-86% (26% severe), while in phase 3 was 36-43% (2% severe). The most common AEs in all studies were CNS-related. The phase 2 consent form was more descriptive of AEs than phase 3. In phase 2, patients recorded AEs and severity in a paper diary that warned about drowsiness and dizziness. In phase 3, patients recorded in electronic diaries whether they experienced unusual feelings after dosing with lasmiditan that they had not felt with a migraine before, and were contacted to determine if an AE had occurred. In phase 2, the AE Schwindel was variably translated from German as "vertigo" or "dizziness," while phase 3 vertigo cases were queried to ensure there was a sensation of rotation or movement. History of recurrent dizziness and/or vertigo was exclusionary in phase 3. CONCLUSIONS: This work illustrates how informed consent wording, AE collection methods, translation, exclusion criteria, and other factors may be important determinants for reporting of the frequency and severity of AEs in clinical trials.

Trajectory of migraine-related disability following long-term treatment with lasmiditan: results of the GLADIATOR study.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is recognized as the second leading cause of disability globally. Lasmiditan is a novel, selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist developed for acute treatment of migraine. Here we analyzed effects of lasmiditan on migraine disability assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scale for interim data from a long-term safety study. METHODS: Completers of two single-attack parent studies were offered participation in the 1 year GLADIATOR study, that randomized participants to treatment with lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg taken as needed for migraine attacks of at least moderate severity. Changes in MIDAS were modeled using a mixed model repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: The sample included 1978 patients who received ≥1 lasmiditan dose and were followed for a median of 288 days. Baseline mean MIDAS scores for the lasmiditan 100-mg and 200-mg groups were 29.4 and 28.9, respectively, indicating severe migraine-related disability. Relative to baseline, MIDAS total scores were significantly lower at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for both dose groups. At 12 months, changes in MIDAS scores were - 12.5 and - 12.2 for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg, respectively, with 49% and 53% of patients, respectively, achieving at least a 50% decrease in MIDAS total score. Statistically significant improvements were also seen for work and/or school absenteeism and presenteeism, monthly headache days, and mean headache pain intensity at all time points up to 1 year. Findings for patients who completed all visits versus those dropping out early were similar. Responses were generally similar for the lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg doses, between subgroups defined based on the number of baseline monthly migraine attacks (≤5 vs. >5), and also between subgroups defined by pain-free response (yes/no) during initial attacks. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with lasmiditan was associated with significant reductions in migraine-related disability, including both work or school absenteeism and presenteeism. The similarity of responses in completers and those who dropped out suggests that selective attrition does not account for the improvements. Benefits were significant at 3 months and maintained through 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.govNCT02565186; first posted October 1, 2015.

Reduction of Hip and Other Fractures in Patients Receiving Teriparatide in Real-World Clinical Practice: Integrated Analysis of Four Prospective Observational Studies.

The phase 3 teriparatide Fracture Prevention Trial showed significant reductions in vertebral (VF) and nonvertebral (NVF) fractures; however, patient exposure was insufficient for full analysis of low-incidence fractures, including hip. We assessed fracture results in pooled data from four prospective, observational teriparatide studies. Ambulatory women and men with osteoporosis received subcutaneous teriparatide 20 µg/day for up to 24 months per routine clinical practice. Fracture rates were compared between 6-month periods, using 0 to 6 months of treatment as the reference period. Analyses used a piecewise exponential model for first fracture. Hip, NVF, clinical VF (CVF), any clinical, and wrist fractures were assessed. For 8828 patients analyzed, mean age was 71 years; mean (SD) treatment duration was 17.4 (8.6) months. The rate of hip fracture decreased significantly for the > 12 to 18-month (- 47.7%) and > 18-month periods (-85.2%) versus the first 6 months of therapy, and for the > 18 versus the > 6 to 12-month period. NVF, CVF, and all clinical fractures were all significantly decreased in each post-reference period, with maximum decreases (> 18-month period) of 52.7%, 69.4%, and 61.2%, respectively, versus 0 to 6 months. No significant reduction was seen for rates of wrist fracture. Teriparatide treatment was associated with statistically significant decreases in hip fracture rate, particularly for > 18 months of treatment, and in NVF, CVF, and all clinical fracture rate in real-world patients. These results should be interpreted in the context of the non-controlled design of the source studies.

Interim results of a prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study of the long-term safety and efficacy of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine (the GLADIATOR study).

OBJECTIVES: To address the need for long-term lasmiditan data, the GLADIATOR study evaluated the safety (primary) and efficacy (secondary) of lasmiditan for the intermittent, acute treatment of migraine attacks for up to 1 year. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, Phase 3 study, patients who had completed either of two single-attack studies were offered the opportunity to be randomized 1:1 to lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg. Patients were asked to use lasmiditan as the first treatment for each new migraine attack of at least moderate severity. Assessments occurred at baseline and at prespecified time increments up to 48 hours after each dose of study drug using an electronic diary, and safety was assessed throughout the study. Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) was assessed at each visit. RESULTS: As of the cut-off date for this interim analysis (6 March 2018), 1978 patients had received ≥ 1 lasmiditan dose and treated 19,058 migraine attacks. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those in the single-attack studies and included dizziness (18.6%), somnolence (8.5%), and paresthesia (6.8%). The frequency of TEAEs generally decreased with subsequent attacks. No treatment-related serious adverse events and no cardiovascular TEAEs potentially due to vasoconstriction were observed. For both lasmiditan doses, efficacy measures were generally consistent over study quarters and treated attacks. Overall, across all treated attacks at 2 hours post-dose, pain freedom was observed in 26.9% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 100 mg and 32.4% of the attacks treated with lasmiditan 200 mg. MIDAS total scores decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: The interim results of this long-term study showed intermittent lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) to be generally well tolerated and efficacious for the acute treatment of migraine over a 1-year period. Trial registration number: NCT02565186; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02565186.

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.

Effect of a rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan on efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine: findings from the phase 3 trials (SAMURAI and SPARTAN).

BACKGROUND: We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. RESULTS: The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Characterization of Dizziness After Lasmiditan Usage: Findings From the SAMURAI and SPARTAN Acute Migraine Treatment Randomized Trials.

TRIAL DESIGN: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies conducted in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and Germany (SPARTAN only). Individuals with migraine were randomized to receive oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo within 4 hours of onset of a migraine attack. The aim of this analysis was to characterize dizziness reported with lasmiditan treatment. METHODS: Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for the current post hoc analyses. Onset time and duration of dizziness were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on presence/absence of dizziness were performed for the endpoints of interference with daily activity, patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain at 2 hours, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours based on adverse events occurring within 2 hours of taking study drug. RESULTS: Dizziness incidence was as follows: Placebo (N = 1262), 2.9% (0.1% severe); lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 654), 8.6% (0.3% severe); lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1265), 14.9% (0.7% severe); and lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1258), 16.8% (1.4% severe). Among participants who received lasmiditan as their first dose, risk factors for dizziness were higher lasmiditan dosage, being non-Hispanic/Latino, mild or moderate severity of migraine attack, and lower body mass index. The median time to onset of dizziness was generally 30-40 minutes, and the median duration was 1.5-2 hours. The presence of dizziness did not appear to have a negative influence on lasmiditan's effect on daily activity, PGIC, freedom from pain, or MBS. Overall, 21 participants experienced vertigo: Lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 2 (0.3%); 100 mg, n = 11 (0.9%); 200 mg, n = 7 (0.6%); and placebo, n = 1 (<0.1%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of dizziness with lasmiditan increased with dose. Dizziness was generally mild or moderate in severity and of quick onset and short duration. The presence of dizziness did not influence drug efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVE: To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications. BACKGROUND: While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2 h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: In these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2 h, compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2 h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ≥0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.

Relationship Between Vertebral Fracture Burden, Height Loss, and Pulmonary Function in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis.

The purpose of this analysis was to assess the association of osteoporosis-related vertebral fracture burden and pulmonary function. This study also examined the relationship between vertebral fracture burden and height loss, estimated by arm span - height. This was a single-site and single-visit study. Patients had a history of at least 1 moderate or severe vertebral fracture. Vertebral fracture burden was quantified using the spinal deformity index (SDI). Pulmonary function during inspiration was determined by spirometry. Forty-one women aged 70-91 completed the study. Vertebral fracture burden negatively correlated with forced inspiratory vital capacity and inspiratory time. For each unit increase in SDI, forced inspiratory vital capacity decreased by 1.62%, and inspiratory time decreased by 2.39%. There was no correlation between SDI and measures of inspiratory flow. For each unit increase in SDI, height decreased by about 0.5 cm. Vertebral fractures were associated with decreased lung volume and height loss.

Fractures in women treated with raloxifene or alendronate: a retrospective database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Raloxifene and alendronate are anti-resorptive therapies approved for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Raloxifene is also indicated to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in postmenopausal women at high risk of invasive breast cancer. A definitive study comparing the fracture effectiveness and rate of breast cancer for raloxifene and alendronate has not been published. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate fracture and breast cancer rates among patients treated with raloxifene or alendronate. METHODS: Females ≥45 years who initiated raloxifene or alendronate in 1998-2006 Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Databases, had continuous enrollment 12 months prior to and at least 12 months after the index date, and had a treatment medication possession ratio ≥80% were included in this study. Rates of vertebral and nonvertebral fractures and breast cancer during 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years of treatment with raloxifene or alendronate were evaluated. Fracture rates were adjusted for potential treatment bias using inverse probability of treatment weights. Multivariate hazard ratios were estimated for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. RESULTS: Raloxifene patients had statistically significantly lower rates of vertebral fractures in 1, 3, 5, and 7 years and for nonvertebral fractures in 1 and 5 years. There were no statistically significant differences in the adjusted fracture rates between raloxifene and alendronate cohorts, except in the 3-year nonvertebral fracture rates where raloxifene was higher. Multivariate hazard ratios of raloxifene versus alendronate cohorts were not significantly different for vertebral and nonvertebral fracture in 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 years. Unweighted and weighted breast cancer rates were lower among raloxifene recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with alendronate and raloxifene had similar adjusted fracture rates in up to 8 years of adherent treatment, and raloxifene patients had lower breast cancer rates.

Lasmiditan for Patients with Migraine and Contraindications to Triptans: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As 5-HT1B receptor agonists, triptans produce vasoconstriction and have cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, has a low affinity for 5-HT1B receptors, does not cause vasoconstriction, and is free of cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients with and without at least one triptan contraindication. METHODS: Patient subgroups, with and without triptan contraindications, were analyzed from pooled patient data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, and MONONOFU). Patients experiencing a single migraine attack of moderate or severe intensity were treated with lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN and MONONOFU only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo, and efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary. RESULTS: Of 5704 patients, 207 (3.6%) patients had at least one contraindication to triptans. Overall subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of lasmiditan on pain freedom, pain relief, freedom from most bothersome symptom, disability freedom, and Patient Global Impression of Change at 2 h post-dose did not differ in patient groups with and without triptan contraindications. These outcomes generally showed a similar benefit pattern for lasmiditan in both subgroups, with all results being statistically significant in patients without contraindications, and pain relief being statistically significant in patients with contraindications. The safety and tolerability profiles of patients with triptan versus without triptan contraindications were similar, including dizziness in 18.3 to 22.8% and somnolence in 7.9 to 9.9% of patients at the highest dose of lasmiditan. CONCLUSIONS: In pooled analyses from four trials, patients with and without triptan contraindications did not differ in their patterns of lasmiditan efficacy. Lasmiditan may be a treatment option in patients with contraindications to triptans. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SAMURAI, NCT:02439320; SPARTAN, NCT:02605174; CENTURION, NCT:03670810; and MONONOFU, NCT:03962738.

Teriparatide and Osteosarcoma Risk: History, Science, Elimination of Boxed Warning, and Other Label Updates.

The phase 3 trials of the bone anabolic drug teriparatide were prematurely terminated because of a preclinical finding of osteosarcoma in rats treated with high doses of teriparatide for near lifetime. Even so, results from these and subsequent clinical trials showed efficacy and tolerability. Based on the phase 3 results and additional preclinical investigations, Forteo (teriparatide) was approved for use in the United States with an indication for the treatment of osteoporosis in patients at high risk for fracture, a boxed warning regarding potential risk of osteosarcoma, a 2-year lifetime limitation of use, other risk mitigations, and a requirement to assess for risk of osteosarcoma in humans treated with teriparatide. Subsequent investigations included five real-world studies directed at assessing a connection between teriparatide and osteosarcoma risk in humans. The early studies did not identify an increased risk of osteosarcoma but were inadequate to sufficiently characterize risk, given the low incidence of this rare form of bone cancer. Learning from these efforts, two studies were undertaken using claims data to identify large cohorts of patients treated with teriparatide and assess whether these patients were found to have osteosarcoma by linking pharmacy claims data with data from cancer registries. These studies showed no increase in osteosarcoma in patients using teriparatide compared with unexposed groups, as well as to the expected population-based background incidence of the disease. Based on this real-world evidence and the totality of data collected from postmarketing use and other clinical investigations, the label was updated in 2020. The changes included addition of information from large observational studies using real-world evidence, removal of the boxed warning, and a revision of the 2-year lifetime limitation. Thus, observational studies with large sample sizes using real-world data can provide supportive evidence to facilitate regulatory decisions including the elimination of a boxed warning. © 2022 Eli Lilly and Company. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.