Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Randomized Trial of Molnupiravir or Placebo in Patients Hospitalized with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Molnupiravir is an oral prodrug of ß-D-N4-hydroxycytidine, active against SARS-CoV-2 in vitro and in animal models. We report data from the phase 2 component of MOVe-IN, a clinical trial evaluating molnupiravir in patients hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial in patients 18 years old and older requiring in-hospital treatment for laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset 10 or fewer days before randomization. Participants were randomly assigned to placebo or molnupiravir 200 mg, 400 mg, or 800 mg (1:1:1:1 ratio), twice daily for 5 days. Primary end points were safety and sustained recovery (participant alive and either not hospitalized or medically ready for discharge) through day 29. RESULTS: Of 304 randomly assigned participants, 218 received at least one dose of molnupiravir and 75 of placebo. At baseline, 74.0% had at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19. Adverse events were reported in 121 of 218 (55.5%) molnupiravir-treated and 46 of 75 (61.3%) placebo-treated participants, with no apparent dose effect on adverse event rates and no evidence of hematologic toxicity based on prespecified adverse events. Of 16 confirmed deaths, most were in participants with severe Covid-19 (75.0%), with underlying comorbidities (87.5%), older than 60 years of age (81.3%), and/or symptom duration longer than 5 days (75.0%) at randomization. Median time to sustained recovery was 9 days in all groups, with similar day 29 recovery rates ranging from 81.5% to 85.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 2 trial of patients hospitalized with Covid-19, a 5-day course of molnupiravir up to 800 mg twice daily was not associated with dose-limiting side effects or adverse events, but did not demonstrate clinical benefit. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04575584.)

Phase 2/3 Trial of Molnupiravir for Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Adults.

BACKGROUND: Safe and effective oral treatments are needed to improve clinical outcomes for nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19. Molnupiravir is an orally administered, small-molecule ribonucleoside prodrug shown to inhibit replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro and in animal models. METHODS: MOVe-OUT is an ongoing, phase 2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study evaluating the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of molnupiravir in nonhospitalized adults. In the phase 2 component, participants had mild or moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 with sign/symptom onset up to (and including) 7 days before randomization. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1:1 to receive 200, 400, or 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days, stratified by time since sign/symptom onset and by being at increased risk for severe illness from Covid-19. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of participants who were hospitalized and/or died through day 29. RESULTS: The phase 2 component randomly assigned 302 participants to treatment; baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment groups. Molnupiravir had no apparent dose-related effect on adverse events, and no clinically meaningful abnormalities in laboratory test results were observed in relation to dose or treatment. Eleven participants were hospitalized or died through day 29. Of 225 participants in the combined molnupiravir group, 7 (3.1%) were hospitalized or died, compared with 4 of 74 participants (5.4%) in the placebo group. Subgroup analyses suggested lower incidences of hospitalization and/or death in the molnupiravir versus placebo groups in participants older than 60 years of age, those with increased risk for severe illness, those with symptom onset up to (and including) 5 days before randomization, and those with both symptom onset up to (and including) 5 days before randomization and increased risk for severe illness. CONCLUSIONS: These interim study results support further evaluation of molnupiravir as a potential treatment to reduce hospitalizations and/or death in nonhospitalized patients with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.)

Design and rationale of two phase 3 randomised controlled trials (COUGH-1 and COUGH-2) of gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, in refractory or unexplained chronic cough.

BACKGROUND: We present study designs, dose selection and preliminary patient characteristics from two phase 3 clinical trials of gefapixant, a P2X3 receptor antagonist, in refractory chronic cough (RCC) or unexplained chronic cough (UCC). METHODS: COUGH-1 (NCT03449134) and COUGH-2 (NCT03449147) are randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials in subjects with RCC or UCC (age ≥18 years; cough duration ≥1 year; Cough Severity Visual Analogue Scale score ≥40 mm). The primary efficacy study periods are 12 weeks (40-week extension; COUGH-1) and 24 weeks (28-week extension; COUGH-2). Interventions include placebo, gefapixant 15 mg and gefapixant 45 mg (1:1:1 ratio). The primary efficacy endpoints are average 24-h cough frequency at Week 12 (COUGH-1) and Week 24 (COUGH-2). Awake cough frequency, patient-reported outcomes and responder analyses are secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The doses of 45 mg (to provide maximal efficacy and acceptable tolerability) and 15 mg (to provide acceptable efficacy and improved tolerability) were selected based on phase 1 and 2 studies. In COUGH-1, 730 participants have been randomised and treated; 74% are female with mean age of 59 years (39% over 65 years), and mean baseline duration of cough of 11.5 years. In COUGH-2, 1314 participants have been randomised and treated; 75% are female with mean age of 58 years (33% over 65 years), and mean baseline duration of cough of 11.1 years. CONCLUSIONS: These global studies include participants with baseline characteristics consistent with previous RCC and UCC studies and will inform the efficacy and safety profile of gefapixant in the treatment of patients with RCC and UCC.

Randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept trial of MK-7622 in Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the selective M1 muscarinic positive allosteric modulator, MK-7622, as adjunctive cognitive enhancing therapy in individuals with Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept trial was performed. Participants with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, being treated with an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, were randomized 1:1 to 45 mg of MK-7622 or placebo for 24 weeks. Endpoints included the mean change from baseline in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog11) at 12 weeks and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Two hundred forty participants were randomized. The trial was stopped for futility after meeting prospectively defined stopping criteria. MK-7622 did not improve cognition at 12 weeks (group difference in ADAS-Cog11: 0.18 [95% confidence interval: -1.0 to 1.3]) or function at 24 weeks (group difference in Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory: 0.06 [95% confidence interval: -2.4 to 2.5]). More participants taking MK-7622 discontinued study medication because of adverse events than those taking placebo (16% vs 6%) and who experienced cholinergically related adverse events (21% vs 8%). DISCUSSION: MK-7622 (45 mg) does not improve cognition or function when used as adjunctive therapy in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.

Incidence of hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis with sugammadex.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis after administration of sugammadex. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Sugammadex clinical development program and post-marketing experience. PATIENTS: Surgical patients and healthy volunteers who received sugammadex or placebo/comparator with anesthesia and/or neuromuscular blockade (NMB). INTERVENTIONS: Sugammadex administered as 2.0 mg/kg at reappearance of the second twitch, 4.0 mg/kg at 1-2 post-tetanic count, or 16.0 mg/kg at 3 min after rocuronium 1.2 mg/kg. MEASUREMENTS: Three analytical methods were used: 1) automated MedDRA queries; 2) searches of adverse events (AEs) consistent with treatment-related hypersensitivity reactions as diagnosed by the investigator; and 3) a retrospective adjudication of AEs suggestive of hypersensitivity by a blinded, independent adjudication committee (AC). In addition, a search of all post-marketing reports of events of hypersensitivity was performed, and events were retrospectively adjudicated by an independent AC. Anaphylaxis was determined according to Sampson Criterion 1. MAIN RESULTS: The pooled dataset included 3519 unique subjects who received sugammadex and 544 who received placebo. The automated MedDRA query method showed no apparent increase in hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis with sugammadex as compared to placebo or neostigmine. Similarly, there was a low overall incidence of AEs of treatment-related hypersensitivity (<1%), with no differences between sugammadex and placebo or neostigmine. Finally, the retrospective adjudication of AEs suggestive of hypersensitivity showed a low incidence of hypersensitivity (0.56% and 0.21% for sugammadex 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg, respectively), with an incidence similar to subjects who received placebo (0.55%). There were no confirmed cases of anaphylaxis in the pooled studies. During post-marketing use, spontaneous reports of anaphylaxis occurred with approximately 0.01% of sugammadex doses. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who received sugammadex with general anesthesia and/or NMB had a low overall incidence of hypersensitivity, with no apparent increase in hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis with sugammadex as compared to placebo or neostigmine.

Orexin Receptor Antagonism in Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Phase 2 Trial With Filorexant.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether orexin receptor antagonism with filorexant provides pain relief in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment, randomized-withdrawal proof-of-concept study, patients with PDN (aged 18 to 75 y) entered a 2-week, single-blind active run-in period with filorexant 10 mg nightly, before randomization 1:1 to placebo or filorexant in a 2-week, double-blind treatment period. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to efficacy failure among "primary responders" (≥30% decrease in evening pain intensity during the run-in). Secondary endpoints were time to efficacy failure among "all responders" (≥20% decrease in evening pain intensity during the run-in) and mean change from baseline in evening pain intensity throughout last 3 days of the double-blind period. RESULTS: Of the 182 patients treated during the run-in, 170 were randomized in the double-blind period, including 65 primary responders and 88 responders. There was no significant difference in proportion of patients with efficacy failure during the double-blind period with filorexant versus placebo among primary (24.3% vs. 32.1% [P=0.411]) or all (34.0% vs. 43.9% [nominal P=0.302]) responders or in mean change from baseline in evening pain intensity scores (estimated treatment difference: -0.587 [P=0.269], primary; -0.687 [P=0.108], all). Adverse events were reported by 24.7% of patients during the run-in. A higher proportion of patients treated with filorexant versus placebo reported adverse events during the double-blind period (23.9% vs. 13.4%). DISCUSSION: These data do not provide evidence for the efficacy of nightly filorexant for the treatment of PDN.

A Phase Ib Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of a Single-Dose of the NR2B Selective N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Antagonist MK-0657 on Levodopa-Induced Dyskinesias and Motor Symptoms in Patients With Parkinson Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Blockade of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors containing the NR2B subunit has been shown to be therapeutic in animal models of Parkinson disease (PD). However, findings with investigational NR2B receptor antagonists in PD patients have been mixed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the NR2B selective N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist MK-0657 on levodopa-induced dyskinesias and motor symptoms in PD patients. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 2-period crossover study was conducted in 22 patients with PD and levodopa-induced peak-dose dyskinesias. Patients received oral MK-0657 (7 mg) or placebo, in randomized order, on each of 2 test days. On both days, levodopa was administered as a 2-hour intravenous infusion at greater than or equal to 1 mg/kg per hour with frequent assessments of dyskinesia, motor function, and pharmacokinetics. RESULTS: MK-0657 7 mg had no significant effect on dyskinesias (difference versus placebo in modified Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale mean change from baseline area under the curve over 5 hours, -2.3; 95% confidence interval, -5.1 to 0.4) or motor function (difference versus placebo in Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III mean change from baseline area under the curve over 5 hours, 13.9; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 29.5). MK-0657 7 mg achieved the target mean maximum plasma concentration of 400 nM. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that a single dose of MK-0657 7 mg is not effective in improving levodopa-induced dyskinesias and motor symptoms in PD patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00505843.

Sugammadex efficacy for reversal of rocuronium- and vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade: A pooled analysis of 26 studies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To summarize and compare efficacy of sugammadex with neostigmine or placebo for reversal of rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade (NMB), and to demonstrate consistency of sugammadex results across various patient populations. DESIGN: Pooled analysis on data from 26 multicenter, randomized, Phase II and III studies. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: 1855 adults undergoing surgery under general anesthesia and receiving rocuronium or vecuronium for NMB. INTERVENTIONS: Sugammadex (2.0mg/kg at second twitch reappearance [T2; moderate NMB], 4.0mg/kg at 1-2 post-tetanic counts [PTC; deep NMB] or 16.0mg/kg at 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg), neostigmine or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Time to recovery of the train-of-four (TOF) ratio to 0.9. MAIN RESULTS: Geometric mean (95% CI) times to recovery to TOF ratio of 0.9 were 1.9 (1.8-2.0) min following sugammadex 2.0mg/kg and 10.6 (9.8-11.6) min following neostigmine administration at T2 after rocuronium, and 2.9 (2.5-3.4) min and 17.4 (13.4-22.6) min, respectively, after vecuronium. Recovery times were 2.2 (2.1-2.3) min following sugammadex 4.0mg/kg and 19.0 (14.8-24.6) min following neostigmine administered at a target of 1-2 PTC after rocuronium, and 3.8 (3.0-5.0) min and 67.6 (56.3-81.2) min after vecuronium. Sugammadex administered 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg resulted in rapid recovery (1.7 [1.5-2.0] min). Modest increases in mean recovery time were associated with vecuronium use (+1.6min [78%; (61%-98%)] versus rocuronium), mild-to-moderate renal impairment (+0.4min [20%; (9%-32%)] versus normal renal function) and geographic location (+1.0min [38%; (25%-52%)] in subjects in USA/Canada versus Europe/Japan). CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex administered at recommended doses provides rapid and predictable reversal of rocuronium and vecuronium-induced moderate and deep NMB, and effective reversal 3min after rocuronium 1.2mg/kg. Robust recovery was seen across various patient factors, providing further confirmation of labeled dose recommendations.

Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improves Laparoscopic Surgical Conditions: A Randomized, Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sustained deep neuromuscular blockade (NMB) during laparoscopic surgery may facilitate optimal surgical conditions. This exploratory study assessed whether deep NMB improves surgical conditions and, in doing so, allows use of lower insufflation pressures during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We further assessed whether use of low insufflation pressure improves patient pain scores after surgery. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, blinded study (NCT01728584) compared use of deep (1-2 post-tetanic-counts) or moderate (train-of-four ratio 10%) NMB, and lower (8 mmHg) or higher (12 mmHg; 'standard') insufflation pressure in a 2 × 2 factorial design. Primary endpoint was surgeon's overall satisfaction with surgical conditions, rated at end of surgery using an 11-point numerical scale. Post-operative pain scores were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Of 127 randomized patients, 120 had evaluable data for the primary endpoint. Surgeon's score of overall satisfaction with surgical conditions was significantly higher with deep versus moderate NMB indicated by a least-square mean difference of 1.1 points (95% confidence interval 0.1-2.0; P = 0.026). Furthermore, strong evidence of an effect was observed for standard versus low pressure: least-square mean difference of 3.0 points (95% confidence interval 2.1-4.0; P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed in average pain scores within 24 h post-surgery for low versus standard pressure [0.17 (95% confidence interval -0.67 to +0.33); P = 0.494]. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with significantly improved surgical conditions, deep NMB alone was insufficient to promote use of low insufflation pressure during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Furthermore, low insufflation pressure did not result in reduced pain, compared with standard pressure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01728584. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

A phase IIb randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

AIM: The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant (MK-1602), a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist (CGRP-RA), for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled study randomized 834 participants to treat one migraine attack with ubrogepant 1 mg, 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and headache response at two hours. The first primary hypothesis tested the dose-response trend for two-hour pain freedom using a logistic regression model. Subsequent hypotheses tested the effects of each dose on the co-primary endpoints, using a closed sequential testing procedure to control for multiplicity. RESULTS: A total of 527 participants received ubrogepant and 113 received placebo. A positive response trend in the proportion of participants achieving two-hour pain freedom was demonstrated (p < 0.001). Ubrogepant 100 mg was significantly superior to placebo for two-hour pain freedom (25.5% vs 8.9%) but not for two-hour headache response. Per the prespecified multiplicity strategy, this nonsignificant result precluded further formal hypothesis testing, although the 50 mg and 25 mg doses demonstrated nominal significance over placebo for two-hour pain freedom (unadjusted p < 0.05). Overall, adverse events were similar between ubrogepant and placebo. CONCLUSION: This trial supports ubrogepant's efficacy and provides further evidence that CGRP-RAs are viable options for the acute treatment of migraine.

Randomized controlled trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist telcagepant for prevention of headache in women with perimenstrual migraine.

AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of perimenstrual telcagepant, a CGRP receptor antagonist, for headache prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, six-month trial in women with migraine for ≥ 3 months who experienced perimenstrual headaches. Women were randomized to telcagepant 140 mg or placebo (2:1 ratio) for seven consecutive days perimenstrually. Safety was assessed by adverse events and laboratory tests. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean monthly headache days in the subset of women reporting perimenstrual migraine (-2 days to +3 days of menses onset) and ≥ 5 moderate or severe migraines per month prior to entering the trial. RESULTS: Telcagepant was generally well tolerated: 66/2660 (2.5%) on telcagepant and 36/1326 (2.7%) on placebo discontinued because of a clinical adverse event. The percentages of patients with clinical adverse events, laboratory adverse events, or discontinuation because of a laboratory adverse event were also similar between treatments. Alanine aminotransferase elevations ≥ 3x normal occurred in 0.6% of women on telcagepant and 0.4% on placebo. Three women on telcagepant vs none on placebo had alanine aminotransferase elevations ≥ 8× normal. In the efficacy subset there was no significant effect of telcagepant (n = 887) vs placebo (n = 447) in mean monthly headache days (treatment difference -0.5 day (95% CI: -1.1, 0.1)). However, telcagepant was associated with a reduction in on-drug headache days (treatment difference -0.4 day (95% CI: -0.5, -0.2), nominal p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Telcagepant 140 mg taken perimenstrually for seven days was generally well tolerated, but was associated with transaminase elevations. Telcagepant did not reduce monthly headache frequency, but did reduce perimenstrual headaches.

Long-term open-label safety study of rizatriptan acute treatment in pediatric migraineurs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety/tolerability of rizatriptan in the long-term acute treatment of migraine in pediatric patients. BACKGROUND: Acute migraine treatment options for children are limited. A recent single-attack trial demonstrated that rizatriptan is effective in eliminating migraine headache pain in this population. We evaluated the long-term safety and efficacy of rizatriptan when used for intermittent acute treatment. METHODS: Open-label study in pediatric migraineurs ages 12-17 years. Patients weighing <40 kg received rizatriptan (orally disintegrating tablet) 5 mg, and those weighing ≥40 kg received 10 mg. Patients could treat up to 8 mild/moderate/severe migraine attacks per month for up to 12 months. One dose of study medication was allowed in a 24-hour period. RESULTS: A total of 674 patients were enrolled, and 606 patients were treated with study medication (N = 583 for 10 mg, N = 23 for 5 mg). The mean duration in the study was 292 days, and the mean number of doses of study medication taken was 20. Over the course of the study within 14 days post-any-dose, 66.0% (400) of the 606 treated patients had any adverse event, 2.3% (14) discontinued due to an adverse event, 2.6% (16) had a serious adverse event, and 23.4% (142) had a triptan-related adverse event. Of the 16 patients with serious adverse events within 14 days post-any-dose, the adverse events in 3 were considered drug-related; all 3 patient's adverse events were classified as serious only because they were associated with an overdose (use of >1 dose of study medication in a 24-hour period). The mean percentage of patient's attacks with pain freedom at 2-hours post-dose was 46.3%; this was relatively consistent over time (Months 1-3 = 43.7%, Months 4-6 = 51.9%, Months 7-9 = 49.9%, Months 10-12 = 49.5%). CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan was generally safe and well tolerated in the long-term acute treatment of migraine in pediatric patients aged 12-17 years and demonstrated a consistent treatment effect over time.

Efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan in pediatric migraineurs: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using a novel adaptive enrichment design.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for children and adolescents with migraine are limited. This study evaluated rizatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine in children and adolescents. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in migraineurs 6-17 years old with unsatisfactory response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen/paracetamol. The trial included a double-blind run-in with weight-based rizatriptan dosing (5 mg for < 40 kg, 10 mg for ≥ 40 kg). In the Stage 1 run-in, patients were randomized in a ratio of 20:1 placebo:rizatriptan and were instructed to treat within 30 minutes of a moderate/severe migraine. Patients with mild/no pain after 15 minutes of treatment (responders) took no further study medication, whereas patients with moderate/severe pain (non-responders) proceeded to take study medication in Stage 2. Non-responders who received placebo in Stage 1 were randomized 1:1 to rizatriptan:placebo, whereas non-responders who received rizatriptan in Stage 1 were allocated to placebo in Stage 2. The primary efficacy endpoint was pain freedom at 2 hours after Stage 2 dose in 12-17-year-olds. RESULTS: A higher proportion of 12-17-year-olds on rizatriptan had pain freedom at 2 hours compared with those on placebo: 87/284 (30.6%) versus 63/286 (22.0%), odds ratio = 1.55 [95% CI: 1.06 to 2.26], p = 0.025. Adverse events within 14 days of dose in 12-17-year-olds were similar for rizatriptan and placebo. The pattern of findings was similar in 6-17-year-olds. CONCLUSION: Rizatriptan demonstrated a statistically significant improvement over placebo in eliminating pain and was generally well tolerated in migraineurs aged 12-17 and 6-17 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01001234.

Randomized controlled trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist MK-3207 in the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the CGRP receptor antagonist MK-3207 for acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, two-stage adaptive study with two interim efficacy analyses to facilitate optimal dose selection. Migraine patients were initially randomized to MK-3207 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 mg or placebo to treat a moderate/severe migraine. One or more doses were to be discontinued based on the first interim analysis and a lower or higher dose could be added based on the second interim analysis. The primary endpoint was two-hour pain freedom. RESULTS: A total of 547 patients took study medication. After the first interim analysis, the two lowest MK-3207 doses (2.5, 5 mg) were identified as showing insufficient efficacy. Per the pre-specified adaptive design decision rule, only the 2.5-mg group was discontinued and the five highest doses (5, 10, 20, 50, 100 mg) were continued into the second stage. After the second interim efficacy analysis, a 200 mg dose was added due to insufficient efficacy at the top three (20, 50, 100 mg) doses. A positive dose-response trend was demonstrated when data were combined across all MK-3207 doses for two-hour pain freedom (p < .001). The pairwise difference versus placebo for two-hour pain freedom was significant for 200 mg (p < .001) and nominally significant for 100 mg and 10 mg (p < .05). The incidence of adverse events appeared comparable between active treatment groups and placebo, and did not appear to increase with increasing dose. CONCLUSIONS: MK-3207 was effective and generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine.

Sustained pain freedom and no adverse events as an endpoint in clinical trials of acute migraine treatments: application to patient-level data from a trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan.

BACKGROUND: Endpoints used to evaluate the efficacy of acute anti-migraine drugs do not measure the tolerability. Sustained pain-free response with no adverse events has been recommended as a composite endpoint which measures the efficacy and tolerability attributes that patients desire. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate new composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints based on a post-hoc analysis of patient-level data from a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Endpoints were 2-24-hour sustained pain freedom and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (SPF24NAE), 2-24 hour sustained pain relief and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (SPR24NAE), pain freedom at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (PF2NAE), and pain relief at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (PR2NAE). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, both telcagepant 300 mg and 150 mg achieved nominal superiority (p values <.05) for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE, PF2NAE and PR2NAE. Zolmitriptan 5 mg showed nominal superiority versus placebo for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE and PF2NAE, but not PR2NAE. Telcagepant 300 mg showed nominal superiority versus zolmitriptan for SPF24NAE, SPR24NA and PR2NAE. CONCLUSION: Composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints may be useful for facilitating comparisons between treatments.

Efficacy and tolerability of MK-0974 (telcagepant), a new oral antagonist of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, compared with zolmitriptan for acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) probably has a role in migraine pathophysiology, and antagonism of its receptors might provide treatment without the vasoconstrictor effects of triptans. We aimed to assess the clinical profile of MK-0974 (telcagepant), an orally bioavailable antagonist of CGRP receptor. METHODS: In a randomised, parallel-treatment, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial at 81 sites in the Europe and the USA, adults with migraine diagnosed by International Headache Society criteria treated moderate or severe attacks with either oral telcagepant 150 mg or 300 mg, zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo. The five co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, or absence of photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea at 2 h after treatment. Analysis was by the full analysis set and multiplicity was controlled for with a step-down closed-testing procedure. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00442936. FINDINGS: 1380 patients were randomly assigned to receive telcagepant 150 mg (n=333) or 300 mg (354), zolmitriptan (345), or placebo (348). Telcagepant 300 mg was more effective than placebo for pain freedom (95 [27%] of 353 patients vs 33 [10%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), pain relief (194 [55%] of 353 vs 95 [28%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), and absences of phonophobia (204 [58%] of 353 vs 126 [37%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), photophobia (180 [51%] of 353 vs 99 [29%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), and nausea (229 [65%] of 352 vs 189 [55%] of 342 [p=0.0061]). Efficacy of telcagepant 300 mg and zolmitriptan 5 mg were much the same, and both were more effective than telcagepant 150 mg. Adverse events were recorded for 31% taking telcagepant 150 mg, 37% taking telcagepant 300 mg, 51% taking zolmitriptan 5 mg, and 32% taking placebo. INTERPRETATION: Telcagepant 300 mg is effective as an acute treatment for migraine with efficacy comparable to that of zolmitriptan 5 mg, but with fewer associated adverse effects. FUNDING: Merck Research Laboratories.

Rofecoxib in patients with mild cognitive impairment: further analyses of data from a randomized, double-blind, trial.

A recent clinical trial in patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) found an increased rate of possible or probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnoses in patients assigned to rofecoxib compared to placebo. This unexpected finding was difficult to interpret due to methodological issues and a lack of confirmation on secondary endpoints, as well as a lack of confirmation in trials in related populations. We performed additional post hoc analyses to explore explanations for the finding based on possible neuropathological, cardiovascular/cerebrovascular, or cognitive effects of rofecoxib. 1) Neuropathological hypothesis: Of the 189 incident cases of possible or probable AD, 154 were probable AD. In probable AD patients, the treatment hazard ratio was reduced compared to the primary analysis -- a concordant finding would have strengthened a conclusion that rofecoxib accelerated the underlying neuropathology of AD. The treatment hazard ratio was increased in the remaining 35 patients with less certain diagnoses, but there was no single predominant reason for the reduced certainty of diagnosis. 2) Cardiovascular hypothesis: Neither cardiovascular risk status nor mean arterial blood pressure had an overall effect on AD diagnosis or modified the treatment difference. 3) Cognitive side-effects hypothesis: The percentages of patients with non-specific NSAID-type central nervous system adverse events were similar between the treatment groups. In summary, the present analyses are limited by their post hoc nature but provided little support for any of the possible explanations explored. The significance of the observation that rofecoxib increased the rate of conversion from MCI to AD remains uncertain.

A randomized trial assessing dorzolamide in patients with glaucoma who are younger than 6 years.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dorzolamide hydrochloride in patients younger than 6 years who have an elevated intraocular pressure or glaucoma. DESIGN: A 3-month, controlled, randomized, double-masked, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients were randomized to 2% dorzolamide 3 times daily or timolol maleate gel-forming solution (0.25% for patients <2 years and 0.5% for patients > or =2 but <6 years) once daily plus placebo twice daily. If the intraocular pressure was not controlled through monotherapy, younger patients received concomitant dorzolamide 3 times daily and 0.25% timolol gel-forming solution once daily and older patients received a fixed combination of 2% dorzolamide and 0.5% timolol twice daily. The primary safety variable was the proportion of patients who discontinued therapy for a drug-related adverse experience. Intraocular pressure reduction was a secondary measure. RESULTS: One younger patient (1.8%) of 56 randomized to dorzolamide discontinued concomitant therapy because of bradycardia. Two older patients (3.0%) of 66 discontinued dorzolamide because of ocular adverse experiences. The most frequent ocular adverse experiences were discharge and ocular hyperemia (younger cohort) and ocular hyperemia and burning/stinging (older cohort). At week 12, the mean change in intraocular pressure for dorzolamide was statistically significant from baseline (-7.3 mm Hg [-20.6%] and -7.1 mm Hg [-23.3%]) in the younger and older cohorts, respectively; P<.001 for both. CONCLUSION: Dorzolamide was generally well tolerated and demonstrated efficacy for up to 3 months in patients younger than 6 years.

A randomized, double-blind, study of rofecoxib in patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. Previous studies with the selective COX-2 inhibitors, rofecoxib and celecoxib, have shown that they do not alter the progression of AD. We conducted a double-blind study to investigate whether rofecoxib could delay a diagnosis of AD in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a group with an expected annual AD diagnosis rate of 10-15%. MCI patients > or =65 years were randomized to rofecoxib 25 mg (N=725) or placebo (N=732) daily for up to 4 years. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD. The estimated annual AD diagnosis rate was lower than the anticipated 10-15%: 6.4% in the rofecoxib group vs 4.5% in the placebo group (rofecoxib : placebo hazard ratio=1.46 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.94), p=0.011). Analyses of secondary end points, including measures of cognition (eg the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog)) and global function (eg the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)), did not demonstrate differences between treatment groups. There was also no consistent evidence that rofecoxib differed from placebo in post hoc analyses comparing ADAS-Cog and CDR-sum of boxes scores in overlapping subgroups of patients who had Mini Mental State Exam scores of 24-26 in the present MCI study and in a previous AD treatment study with a similar design. The results from this MCI study did not support the hypothesis that rofecoxib would delay a diagnosis of AD. In conjunction with the lack of effects observed in previous AD studies, the findings suggest that inhibition of COX-2 is not a useful therapeutic approach in AD.