Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. METHODS: An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12. RESULTS: There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. CONCLUSION: In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling. RESULTS: Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher. CONCLUSIONS: Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A meta-analysis on 10 years of real-world data.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis evaluated the real-world effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®), the first preventive treatment FDA-approved specifically for chronic migraine in 2010. METHODS: We systematically reviewed onabotulinumtoxinA observational data in chronic migraine published between 1 January 2010 and 31 March 2021. Random-effects models evaluated available data for primary and secondary endpoints defined in onabotulinumtoxinA pivotal trials at approximately 24 weeks and 52 weeks. RESULTS: Of the 44 full-text eligible studies (29 prospective; 13 retrospective; 2 other), seven evaluated change from baseline (mean[confidence interval]) at ∼24 weeks and ∼52 weeks, respectively, for onabotulinumtoxinA in: number of headache days/month: (-10.64 [-12.31, -8.97]; -10.32 [-14.92, -5.73]); number of days of acute headache pain medication intake per month (-7.40 [-13.04, -1.77]; overlapping CIs at 52 weeks); total Headache Impact Test-6 score (-11.70 [-13.86, -9.54]); -11.80 [14.70, -8.90]); and Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life v2.1 score (MSQ; 23.60 [CI: 21.56, 25.64]; 30.90 [CI: 28.29, 33.51]). At ∼24 weeks onabotulinumtoxinA showed total Migraine Disability Assessment score of 44.74 [28.50, 60.99] and ≥50% reduction in migraine days response rate of 46.57% [29.50%, 63.65%]. A sensitivity analysis at study-end suggested durability of onabotulinumtoxinA effectiveness on MSQ. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis reflecting real-world practice broadly corroborated with evidence from pivotal and long-term open-label studies of onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine preventive treatment.

Prospective, Observational, Multicenter, Real-World Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Pattern of Use of the Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Diabetic Macular Edema in France: Short-Term Outcomes of LOUVRE 3.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate real-world efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in diabetic macular edema (DME) in France. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational, noncomparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutively enrolled patients with DME had a baseline evaluation on day 0. Those treated with DEX on day 0 were to be reevaluated at week 6 and months 6, 12, 18, and 24. DEX retreatment and/or alternative therapies were allowed during follow-up. The primary outcome measure was the maximum best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) gain from baseline during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures included time to maximum BCVA gain, patients (%) with prespecified BCVA gains from baseline at each visit, maximum central retinal thickness (CRT) reduction from baseline, patients (%) with CRT reduction ≥ 20% from baseline at each visit, patients (%) with DME resolution (per investigator judgement), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Of 112 patients/eyes with DME for 3.5 years (mean) at baseline, 80 (including 86.1% previously treated) received DEX on day 0 and were analyzed for efficacy. Early study termination precluded collection of ≥ 12-month efficacy data. Patients received 1.4 DEX injections over 8.3 months (averages). The maximum BCVA gain from baseline was 3.6 letters, reached after 77.2 days (averages); 24.6% (week 6) and 15.0% (month 6) of patients experienced ≥ 10-letter BCVA gains from baseline. The mean maximum CRT reduction from baseline was -146.4 µm; 61.4% (week 6) and 36.0% (month 6) of patients had CRT reductions ≥ 20% from baseline, and 68.1% reported DME resolution at least once during follow-up. Ocular hypertension (n = 8, 12.1%) was the most frequent treatment-related AE. CONCLUSIONS: LOUVRE 3 confirmed that DEX improves BCVA and CRT, even in a patient population that had predominantly received DEX before enrollment in the study, and showed that DME resolution was observed during follow-up. DEX tolerability was consistent with published data, supporting treatment benefits in DME. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03003416.

Costs comparison of treating diabetic macular edema with aflibercept, ranibizumab or dexamethasone at 1 year in France (INVICOST study).

PURPOSE: INVICOST, a medico-economic analysis, compared costs of managing treatment-naive patients with diabetic macular edema (DME) receiving intravitreal injections (IVIs) of aflibercept (AFL), dexamethasone implant (DXI) or ranibizumab (RAN) over 1 year. METHODS: Healthcare resource use and associated costs were estimated using individual patient data from INVICTUS, a prospective, open-label, monocentric study. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical costs such as drug acquisition and administration, consultations and ophthalmological procedures. Costs were assessed from the French National Health Insurance perspective using published national tariffs expressed in 2019 euros. RESULTS: Of the 60 treated eyes, 48 had no treatment switch; 14 received AFL, 19 received DXI and 15 received RAN. AFL-treated eyes received an average of 6.5 IVIs, DXI-treated patients received 2 IVIs and RAN-treated received 6.8 IVIs. All treated eyes received an initial prescription for adjunctive ocular medications and 349 follow-up procedures were performed including an average of 3.9 optical coherence tomography and 3.2 retinography procedures per eye. Average total direct cost of per-eye treatment was €4516 (€1128-€8257). Average cost was €5782 for eyes treated with AFL, €2779 with DXI and €5536 with RAN. Drug therapy was the cost driver: €4394 (76%) for AFL, €1915 for DXI (69%) and €4268 (77%) for RAN. CONCLUSION: The difference in total treatment cost is largely explained by the significantly lower frequency of IVI and annual cost of therapy with DXI, compared with AFL and RAN. INVICOST is the first study comparing treatment costs with AFL, DXI and RAN in France in current clinical practice.

Real-Life Efficacy, Safety, and Use of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in Posterior Segment Inflammation Due to Non-infectious Uveitis (LOUVRE 2 Study).

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate real-life efficacy, safety, and treatment patterns with the dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (treatment-naïve or not) in French clinics. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, observational, non-comparative, post-reimbursement study, consecutive patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis were enrolled and evaluated at baseline (day 0). Those who received DEX on day 0 were re-evaluated at months 2, 6, and 18. Retreatment with DEX and/or alternative therapies was allowed during follow-up. PRIMARY OUTCOME: patients (%) with at least a 15-letter gain in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at 2 months. Secondary outcomes included patients (%) with at least 15-letter BCVA gains at 6 and 18 months; mean BCVA change from baseline at 2, 6, and 18 months; and patients (%) retreated, mean central retinal thickness (CRT), and adverse events (AEs) at all post-baseline visits. RESULTS: Ninety-seven of 245 enrolled patients with posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis (80% previously treated) and disease duration of 5 years (average) received DEX on day 0 and were included in efficacy analyses. At month 2 (n = 91), 20.5% of patients (95% CI 12.0-28.9) gained at least 15 letters from a baseline mean of 60.9 letters; the mean gain was 6.2 letters (95% CI 3.5-8.9). At month 6, 50.0% (n = 38/76) of patients did not receive alternative treatment or DEX retreatment, mostly because inflammation had sufficiently subsided (n = 27/38, 71.1%). Although early study termination prevented efficacy analysis at 18 months (n = 12), CRT reductions persisted throughout follow-up. From baseline to month 18, 21/245 (8.6%) patients had DEX-related AEs; 17/245 (6.9%) had ocular hypertension (most common AE). CONCLUSION: LOUVRE 2 confirms DEX efficacy on visual acuity and CRT in predominantly DEX-pretreated patients with relatively old/stabilized uveitis. DEX tolerability was consistent with known/published data, confirming treatment benefits in posterior segment inflammation due to non-infectious uveitis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02951975.

Real-life management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) in France: a nationwide observational study using retrospective claims data.

AIMS: Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy is standard care for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD), but the recommended monthly injection regimen is burdensome. Evidence suggests low injection/monitoring frequencies in clinical practice and suboptimal vision outcomes. This observational cohort study uses administrative claims data from the French national healthcare system to assess anti-VEGF treatment patterns and nAMD-specific healthcare resource demands and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: nAMD patients ≥50 years initiating intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept or bevacizumab treatment (2014‒2015), and propensity score-matched non-nAMD patients (controls), were identified from the Echantillon Généraliste de Bénéficiaires database. Outcomes of interest included anti-VEGF treatment patterns, and healthcare resource utilization and associated costs of patients vis-à-vis controls over 24 months. RESULTS: Study patients (n = 355) received (mean) 5.2 and 2.4 anti-VEGF injections over 0‒12 and 12‒24 months, respectively. Most patients (79.0%) remained on their initial anti-VEGF agent; among treatment switchers, the most common transition was from ranibizumab to aflibercept. During follow-up, nAMD patients were more likely than controls to require ophthalmology visits (99.7% vs. 44.8%), ocular procedures (optical coherence tomography/angiography/fundoscopy) (96.9% vs. 27.2%), cataract surgery (13.0% vs. 6.7%), and medical transports (38.0% vs. 31.9%). Mean numbers of ophthalmology visits (25.1 vs. 1.2) and medical transports (6.0 vs. 3.5) were higher (p<.01) among nAMD patients. Total reimbursed costs were two-fold higher for nAMD patients than controls (mean €16,799 vs. €8,255) due to higher treatment costs (€6,847 vs. €1,156), medical fees (€1,858 vs. €295), hospital fees (€6,396 vs. €5,235), and transport costs (€358 vs. €259). Excess total healthcare cost was (mean) €5,279 and €7,918 over the first 12 and 24 months of treatment, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Current intravitreal anti-VEGF treatment and monitoring requirements place a considerable economic burden on the French healthcare system. New intravitreal therapies with extended dosing intervals and predictable efficacy might reduce demand for ophthalmology services.