Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months. RESULTS: Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Galcanezumab and rimegepant are preventive treatments for episodic migraine. The goal of this study was to compare the efficacy of galcanezumab and rimegepant in reducing the number of monthly migraine headaches and to determine if galcanezumab was better than rimegepant. The study provides important information to doctors and their patients when making treatment decisions.People with episodic migraine were assigned to the galcanezumab (given as an injection under the skin) or rimegepant (given as a tablet that dissolves in the mouth) group and treated for 3 months. The doctor and the patient did not know which group they were assigned to, and to keep it unknown to both, people in the galcanezumab group got an injection with real medicine and a fake tablet, and people in the rimegepant group got a tablet with real medicine and a fake injection. The researchers wanted to know how many people in each group had at least a 50% reduction in their monthly migraine headaches.Of the 580 people in the study, 287 were assigned to galcanezumab and 293 to rimegepant. In both groups, most were female and white. After 3 months of treatment, 62% of the people in the galcanezumab group and 61% of people in the rimegepant group had at least a 50% reduction in monthly migraine headaches. Both treatments were effective, but galcanezumab was not better than rimegepant. About 20% of the people in each treatment group had a side effect from the medication, and most were mild or moderate in severity.

Clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with episodic cluster headache: results from the United States, United Kingdom and Germany.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics and regional treatment patterns of episodic cluster headache (CH). METHODS: A point-in-time survey of physicians and their patients with CH was conducted in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany in 2017. RESULTS: Overall, 1012 patients with episodic CH were analyzed. Demographic and clinical findings were generally consistent across regions. Most patients were men (66.6%) and the mean age was 40.9 years. The greatest proportion of patients (38.3%) had ≤1 attack per day. The mean number of attacks per day (APD) was 2.4 and mean number of cluster periods per year was 2.6; the mean cluster period duration was 30.8 days. Most patients (69.3%) did not report a specific or predicable time when cluster periods occurred. Acute treatment was prescribed for 47.6% of patients, 10.3% of patients received preventive treatment, and 37.9% of patients received combined acute and preventive treatment; 4.2% of patients were not receiving treatment. Frequently prescribed acute treatments were sumatriptan, oxygen, and zolmitriptan; oxygen use varied considerably across countries and was prescribed least often in the United States. Frequently prescribed preventive treatments were verapamil, topiramate, and lithium. Lack of efficacy and tolerability were the most common reasons for discontinuing preventive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We observed high use of acute treatments, but only half of patients used preventive treatments despite experiencing several cluster periods per year with multiple cluster APD. Further studies about the need for and benefits of preventive treatment for episodic CH are warranted.

People with cluster headache (CH) experience headache attacks of excruciating stabbing pain, usually on one side of the head around the eye. These headache attacks typically last between 15 min and 3 h, and come in clusters (or bouts) occurring up to several times a day for a few weeks or months at a time. This greatly impacts a patient's quality of life.We surveyed doctors and their patients across the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, looking at symptoms that occurred during CH attacks, how long the headache attacks lasted, how often the patient had them, and what medicines were being given.Our results showed that patients with CH suffered from clusters (bouts) of headache attacks several times a year. Nearly, a third of patients had a wrong diagnosis before being diagnosed with CH. Patients experienced stress, agitation, restlessness, difficulty relaxing and depression during a headache attack, especially those who had more CH attacks each day.Although many patients were taking medication, only half of patients were prescribed medicines to prevent their headache attack from starting. Side effects and the medicines not working were the most common reasons patients stopped taking medicine to prevent their headache attacks. The differences seen in medicines prescribed between countries suggest differences in guidance, or in doctors' awareness of current medication guidelines. Further studies about the need for and benefits of medicines to prevent CH attacks are needed.

A dehydrated space-weathered skin cloaking the hydrated interior of Ryugu.

Without a protective atmosphere, space-exposed surfaces of airless Solar System bodies gradually experience an alteration in composition, structure and optical properties through a collective process called space weathering. The return of samples from near-Earth asteroid (162173) Ryugu by Hayabusa2 provides the first opportunity for laboratory study of space-weathering signatures on the most abundant type of inner solar system body: a C-type asteroid, composed of materials largely unchanged since the formation of the Solar System. Weathered Ryugu grains show areas of surface amorphization and partial melting of phyllosilicates, in which reduction from Fe3+ to Fe2+ and dehydration developed. Space weathering probably contributed to dehydration by dehydroxylation of Ryugu surface phyllosilicates that had already lost interlayer water molecules and to weakening of the 2.7 µm hydroxyl (-OH) band in reflectance spectra. For C-type asteroids in general, this indicates that a weak 2.7 µm band can signify space-weathering-induced surface dehydration, rather than bulk volatile loss.

Total Synthesis of Sanctolide A and Formal Synthesis of (2S)-Sanctolide A.

Two synthetic strategies employing phosphate tether-mediated one-pot sequential protocols for the total synthesis of the polyketide nonribosomal peptide macrolide, sanctolide A, and the formal synthesis of the (2S)-epimer of sanctolide A are reported. In this work, a phosphate tether-mediated one-pot sequential ring-closing metathesis/cross metathesis/substrate-controlled "H2"/tether removal approach was developed to accomplish the total synthesis of the natural product sanctolide A.

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache: data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials in Europe and North America.

Objective: Two phase 3 galcanezumab trials were conducted in Europe and North America to analyze the reduction of weekly cluster headache (CH) attack frequency in populations with episodic and chronic CH. The current study aims to illustrate prospectively recorded baseline clinical data from these trials and to identify possible predictors of response. Methods: Patients (aged 18-65 years) met The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition-beta criteria for CH. Attacks were evaluated using an electronic headache diary for 7-day (episodic) or 14-day (chronic) eligibility assessments before patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo. Results: Data were collected from 106 patients with episodic and 237 with chronic CH. Overall, the mean age [standard deviation] was 45.4 [11.0] years; patients were predominantly White (84.5%), male (75.8%), and European (77.6%). Patients with episodic CH reported 17.5 [10.0] attacks/week; patients with chronic CH reported 18.8 [10.2] attacks/week. The average pain severity score (range 0-4) was 2.5 [0.7] for episodic CH and 2.7 [0.7] for chronic CH. Higher attack frequency was a possible predictor of response to galcanezumab; potential negative predictors of response were greater attack severity and duration. Conclusion: This large dataset of patients with CH provides reliable systematically and prospectively collected information on disease characteristics. The analysis in episodic CH underscores potential predictors of response worth considering for future CH trial design. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers: NCT02397473 and NCT02438826.

Reliability analysis of smart laminated composite plates under static loads using artificial neural networks.

The applications of smart structures with integrated piezoelectric elements have been expanding in the last few decades due to the abilities of such structures to withstand mechanical loads and operate as sensors or actuators using their electromechanical coupling. The available manufacturing techniques can result in uncertainties in the structure's geometric parameters, which, coupled with uncertainties in material properties, can lead to unexpected failures or unreliable performance. This paper presents a reliability analysis of a smart laminated composite plate made of a graphite/epoxy cross-ply substrate with a piezoelectric fiber-reinforced composite (PFRC) actuator layer under static electrical and mechanical loads. A coupled finite element (FE) model was developed in COMSOL Multiphysics, from which nondimensional stresses and displacements were calculated. To investigate the effects of randomness in the material and geometric properties, an artificial neural network (ANN) model was developed and trained using generated FE data. Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) and First- and Second-Order Reliability Methods (FORM/SORM) were then used to shed light on the significance of considering randomness in the various material and geometric parameters and the effect of such uncertainty on the resulting nondimensional stresses and displacements. A coefficient of variation (CV) study identified the piezoelectric stress coefficient as the most significant contributing factor to the variation of all nondimensional parameters. Variation in the nondimensional parameters also increases under the application of an electric load. ANN-based FORM, SORM, and MCS all indicate a pattern of low probability of failure until a threshold value of about 3% of input parameter variation is reached, beyond which there is a rapid nonlinear increase in failure probability with increasing input parameter variation.

Long-term open-label safety study of galcanezumab in patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: CGAR, a Phase 3b open-label study, evaluated the long-term safety of galcanezumab in patients with cluster headache who completed one of two Phase 3 double-blind studies in chronic or episodic cluster headache. METHODS: Patients (N = 164) received galcanezumab 300 mg subcutaneously up to once a month. Primary endpoint was safety, as assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and suicidality. Other endpoints included discontinuation rates, immunogenicity, efficacy as assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and health values. RESULTS: At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 48.3 (9.8) years, 75.0% were men, and 85.4% were white. Treatment-emergent adverse events (n = 119 [72.6%]) were mostly mild-to-moderate, with nasopharyngitis the most commonly reported (22.0%). One of 18 serious adverse events was judged as treatment related (constipation). Two patients (1.2%) reported suicidal ideation. Five patients (3.1%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Eight patients were treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody positive, two of whom were not treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody positive in the parent studies. On the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, ≥81% reported their cluster headache status as very much, much, or a little better at Months 1, 6, and 12. Health value scores generally improved from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label study, galcanezumab was generally well tolerated and improved patient-reported cluster headache status.Trial registration number: NCT02797951; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02797951.

Challenges and complexities in designing cluster headache prevention clinical trials: A narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies. BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off-label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995. METHODS/RESULTS: Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of "cluster headache," and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo-controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo-controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.

Tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache with up to 15 months of galcanezumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache (CH) with up to 15 months of treatment. BACKGROUND: Chronic CH is a highly debilitating disease with a substantial and unmet medical need. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab (300 mg) monthly for 12 weeks, followed by an optional 52-week open-label extension and 16-week posttreatment follow-up (washout). This is a secondary analysis and long-term follow-up of a previously conducted clinical trial. The safety analysis included patients who received galcanezumab at any time during the study. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and suicidality ratings. RESULTS: A total of 233 patients received at least one galcanezumab dose. The mean exposure was 341 days. Galcanezumab-treated patients were mostly male (n = 169/233; 72.5%) with a mean age of 44.9 (±10.9) years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 185 patients (n = 185/233; 79.4%), 23 patients (n = 23/233; 9.9%) reported serious adverse events (SAEs), and 18 patients (n = 18/233; 7.7%) discontinued due to AEs. The SAE CH was reported by three patients. The most common TEAEs (>10%) were nasopharyngitis (n = 41/233; 17.6%) and injection site pain (n = 33/233; 14.2%). 27.5% of patients (n = 64/233) had TEAEs related to injection sites. Likely hypersensitivity events, including injection site rash, injection site urticaria, and injection site hypersensitivity were reported (n = 14/233; 6.0%). There were past histories of suicidal ideation (n = 55/237; 23.2%) and suicidal behavior (n = 9/236; 3.8%). During the study, 15 patients (n = 15/230; 6.5%), seven with previous history, reported suicidal ideation. One patient had a nonfatal suicide attempt during the open-label extension and an aborted attempt during the washout. There were no new safety findings compared with the placebo-controlled treatment period in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab 300 mg monthly had a favorable tolerability and safety profile in patients with chronic CH with up to 15 months of treatment.

Impact of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Patients with Episodic Cluster Headache.

PURPOSE: In a phase 3 study, galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of episodic cluster headache attacks across weeks 1-3 (primary endpoint) compared with placebo. However, multiple pain dimensions may contribute to the total burden of episodic cluster headache pain. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of galcanezumab on the total pain burden of episodic cluster headache using a composite measure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with episodic cluster headache were randomized 1:1 to galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo once monthly for 8 weeks. Mean weekly total pain burden was calculated (daily cluster headache attack frequency × average duration × average pain severity summed over 7 days) using data collected in an electronic patient-reported outcomes diary. Change from baseline in weekly total pain burden across weeks 1-3 was compared between galcanezumab and placebo. To explore construct validity, mean weekly total pain burden scores were stratified by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) responses at the week 4 clinic visit. RESULTS: The reduction from baseline in mean weekly total pain burden was significantly greater with galcanezumab (N=49) than with placebo (N=57): the least squares mean difference was -11.18 severity-weighted hours (p=0.035). Median weekly total pain burden decreased as PGI-I ratings improved, from 33.6 to 5.0 severity-weighted hours for patients who felt "very much worse" and "very much better," respectively. CONCLUSION: Galcanezumab significantly reduced mean weekly total pain burden compared with placebo in patients with episodic cluster headache. The composite pain measure demonstrated construct validity. Total pain burden may provide a holistic measure of the pain of episodic cluster headache. CLINICAL TRIALS: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397473.

Treatment Outcomes in Patients Treated With Galcanezumab vs Placebo: Post Hoc Analyses From a Phase 3 Randomized Study in Patients With Episodic Cluster Headache.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a highly disabling primary headache disorder. To date, characterization of outcomes in the preventive treatment of episodic CH, including precise definitions of clinically meaningful attack frequency reduction and impact on acute treatment management, is lacking. METHODS: This was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients (men or women aged 18-65 years) diagnosed with episodic CH as defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 beta criteria. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attack frequency, and impact on acute medication use. An anchor-based assessment of clinically relevant attack frequency reduction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores at Week 4 was also assessed. RESULTS: The median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attacks was consistently shorter (9-10 days sooner) with galcanezumab vs placebo (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI]: ≥50%, 5 days [4.0 to 7.0] vs 14 days [6.0 to 19.0]; ≥75%, 11 days [7.0 to 16.0] vs 21 days [13.0 to 26.0]; 100%, 22 days [16.0 to 37.0] vs 32 days [23.0 to 34.0]). Mean reduction from baseline in the overall frequency of weekly pooled acute medication use across Weeks 1-3 was significantly greater with galcanezumab vs placebo (11.0 vs 5.5; odds ratio, OR [95% CI]: 5.52 [1.02, 10.01]; P value = .017). Patients reporting "much better" on the PGI-I experienced a median weekly CH attack reduction of approximately 43% from baseline across Weeks 1-3. The overall odds of achieving an attack reduction threshold of 43% across Weeks 1-3 was significantly higher with galcanezumab vs placebo (Weeks 1-3: OR [95% CI], 2.60 [1.3 to 5.3]). CONCLUSIONS: Faster median time-to-first occurrence of response rates, lower frequency of pooled acute medications use, and a greater proportion of patients achieving a response anchored by patient-reported improvement were observed for galcanezumab vs placebo.

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

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

Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled study of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache: Results from 3-month double-blind treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To report efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in adults with chronic cluster headache. BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its biological activity. METHODS: This study comprised a prospective baseline period, a 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, and a 52-week open-label period. Up to six protocol-specified concomitant preventive medications were allowed if patients were on a stable dose for 2 months prior to the prospective baseline period. Patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab (300 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in weekly attack frequency with galcanezumab compared to placebo. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50% response rate and percentage of patients meeting sustained response. Results from the double-blind treatment period are reported. RESULTS: A total of 237 patients were randomized and treated (120 placebo; 117 galcanezumab). At baseline, the mean age was 45 years and 63% were using ≥1 preventive drug. The primary endpoint was not met; mean change in weekly attack frequency was -4.6 placebo versus -5.4 galcanezumab (p = 0.334). Key secondary endpoints also were not met. Injection site-related treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the galcanezumab than the placebo group, with significantly more injection site erythema. CONCLUSION: Treatment with galcanezumab 300 mg did not achieve its primary and key secondary endpoints. This study underscores the potential distinct biology of cCH as well as the significant unmet need for safe, effective, and well-tolerated preventive treatment. The safety profile of galcanezumab in cCH is consistent with that observed in trials of episodic CH and migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02438826; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02438826.

Trial of Galcanezumab in Prevention of Episodic Cluster Headache.

BACKGROUND: Episodic cluster headache is a disabling neurologic disorder that is characterized by daily headache attacks that occur over periods of weeks or months. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be a preventive treatment for cluster headache. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had at least one attack every other day, at least four total attacks, and no more than eight attacks per day during a baseline assessment, as well as a history of cluster headache periods lasting at least 6 weeks, and randomly assigned them to receive galcanezumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously at baseline and at 1 month. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 after receipt of the first dose. The key secondary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks at week 3. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Recruitment was halted before the trial reached the planned sample size of 162 because too few volunteers met the eligibility criteria. Of 106 enrolled patients, 49 were randomly assigned to receive galcanezumab and 57 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) number of cluster headache attacks per week in the baseline period was 17.8±10.1 in the galcanezumab group and 17.3±10.1 in the placebo group. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 was 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (difference, 3.5 attacks per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). The percentage of patients who had a reduction of at least 50% in headache frequency at week 3 was 71% in the galcanezumab group and 53% in the placebo group. There were no substantial between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events, except that 8% of the patients in the galcanezumab group had injection-site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab administered subcutaneously at a dose of 300 mg once monthly reduced the weekly frequency of attacks of episodic cluster headache across weeks 1 through 3 after the initial injection, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02397473.).

Onset of efficacy and duration of response of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: a post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As new migraine prevention treatments are developed, the onset of a preventive effect, how long it is maintained and whether patients initially non-responsive develop clinically meaningful responses with continued treatment can be assessed. METHODS: Analyses were conducted post-hoc of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II-a study in patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab 150 mg or placebo biweekly for 12 weeks (Lancet Neurol 13:885, 2014). The number of migraine headache days per week, and onset of efficacy measured as the first week galacanezumab separated from placebo were determined. Patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in migraine headache days from baseline at months 1, 2 and 3 were calculated and defined as sustained responses. Non-responders (<50% response) at month 1 or 2 who then showed ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% response at later time-points were calculated. RESULTS: Patients were randomised to galcanezumab (n=107) or placebo (n=110). A significant (p=0.018) change of -0.89±0.11 (galcanezumab) vs -0.53±0.11 (placebo) migraine headache days indicated onset at week 1. Forty-seven per cent of galcanezumab and 25% of placebo patients responding at month 1 maintained response through months 2 and 3. Of non-responders at month 1, 27% on galcanezumab and 20% on placebo responded on months 2 and 3, and 50% of galcanezumab non-responders in months 1 and 2 responded on month 3, vs 24% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of efficacy of galcanezumab is within 1 week in a majority of patients, and patients receiving galcanezumab are twice more likely to maintain responses than placebo patients. Early non-responders may respond by month 2 or month 3. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01625988.

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis.

AIM: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism + short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism + disability. CONCLUSION: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.

Effect of Different Doses of Galcanezumab vs Placebo for Episodic Migraine Prevention: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Galcanezumab (LY2951742), a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is one of a novel class of new medicines for migraine prevention. Objective: To assess whether at least 1 dose of galcanezumab was superior to placebo for episodic migraine prevention. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in the United States (July 7, 2014, to August 19, 2015) in clinics of 37 licensed physicians with a specialty including, but not limited to, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, and primary care. Subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, 5, 50, 120, or 300 mg, or placebo were given monthly during the 3-month treatment period. A total of 936 patients were assessed; 526 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria and 410 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or galcanezumab. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study drug. Interventions: Short-term migraine treatments were allowed as needed except for opioids or barbiturates. Main Outcomes and Measures: To determine if at least 1 of the 4 doses of galcanezumab tested was superior to placebo for migraine prevention measured by the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days 9 weeks to 12 weeks after randomization. Results: Of the 936 patients assessed, 410 met entry criteria (aged 18-65 years with 4-14 migraine headache days per month and migraine onset prior to age 50 years) and were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab. For the primary end point, galcanezumab, 120 mg, significantly reduced migraine headache days compared with placebo (99.6% posterior probability -4.8 days; 90% BCI, -5.4 to -4.2 days vs 95% superiority threshold [Bayesian analysis] -3.7 days; 90% BCI, -4.1 to -3.2 days). Adverse events reported by 5% or more of patients in at least 1 galcanezumab dose group and more frequently than placebo included injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, dysmenorrhea, and nausea. Conclusions and Relevance: Monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, both 120 mg and 300 mg, demonstrated efficacy (repeated-measures analysis) for the preventive treatment of migraine and support further development in larger phase 3 studies. All dosages were safe and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163993.

Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Patterns Among Patients Diagnosed With Cluster Headache in U.S. Healthcare Claims Data.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns of patients with cluster headache (CH). BACKGROUND: CH is an uncommon trigeminal autonomic cephalalgia with limited evidence-based treatment options. Patients suffer from extremely painful unilateral headache attacks and autonomic symptoms with episodic and chronic cycles. DESIGN/METHODS: This retrospective analysis used insurance claims from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® research databases from 2009 to 2014. Two cohorts were compared: CH patients (with ≥2 CH claims) were propensity score matched with 4 non-headache controls, all with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and after the date of first CH claim or matched period among controls. RESULTS: CH patients (N = 7589) were mainly male (57.4%) and 35-64 years old (73.2%), with significantly more claims for comorbid conditions vs controls (N = 30,341), including depressive disorders (19.8% vs 10.0%), sleep disturbances (19.7% vs 9.1%), anxiety disorders (19.2% vs 8.7%), and tobacco use disorders (12.8% vs 5.3%), with 2.5 times greater odds of suicidal ideation (all P < .0001). Odds of drug dependence were 3-fold greater among CH patients (OR = 2.8 [95% CI 2.3-3.4, P < .0001]). CH patients reported significantly greater use of prescription medications compared with controls; 25% of CH patients had >12 unique prescription drug claims. Most commonly prescribed drug classes for CH patients included: opiate agonists (41%), corticosteroids (34%), 5HT-1 agonists (32%), antidepressants (31%), NSAIDs (29%), anticonvulsants (28%), calcium antagonists (27%), and benzodiazepines (22%). Only 30.4% of CH patients received recognized CH treatments without opioids during the 12-month post-index period. These patients were less likely to visit emergency departments or need hospitalizations (26.8%) as compared to CH patients with no pharmacy claims for recognized CH treatments or opioids (33.6%; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The burden of CH is associated with significant co-morbidity, including substance use disorders and suicidal ideation, and treatment patterns indicating low use of recognized CH treatments.

Rapid Growth of Zinc Oxide Nanotube-Nanowire Hybrid Architectures and Their Use in Breast Cancer-Related Volatile Organics Detection.

A simple direct method for the rapid fabrication of zinc oxide nanotube-nanowire hybrid structure in an environmentally friendly way is described here. Zinc foils were anodized in an aqueous solution of washing soda and baking soda at room temperature in order to obtain the hybrid architecture. At the beginning of the process nanowires were formed on the substrate. The wider nanowires transformed into nanotubes in about a minute and grew in length with time. The morphological integrity was maintained upon heat treatment at temperatures up to the melting point of the substrate (∼400 °C) except that the nanotube wall became porous. The chemiresistor devices fabricated using the heat-treated structure exhibited high response to low-concentration volatile organic compounds that are considered markers for breast cancer. The response was not significantly affected by high humidity or presence of hydrogen, methane, or carbon dioxide. The devices are expected to find use as breath sensors for noninvasive early detection of breast cancer.

Efficacy outcomes from 3 clinical trials of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment for patients with major depressive disorder who are partial responders to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Three studies examined whether edivoxetine (a highly selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) had efficacy as adjunctive therapy for patients with major depressive disorder (DSM-IV-TR) who were partial responders to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment of at least 6 weeks' duration. METHOD: Studies were 8-week randomized, placebo-controlled trials with a 3-week double-blind placebo lead-in phase, conducted from December 16, 2010, to October 21, 2013. Patients entered the double-blind adjunctive treatment phase if they met randomization criteria (< 25% improvement on Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] and MADRS total score ≥ 14); patients not randomized remained on adjunctive placebo. Study 1 compared fixed-dose edivoxetine (12 or 18 mg daily) + SSRI (N = 231 and N = 230, respectively) with placebo + SSRI (N = 240); study 2 compared flexible-dose edivoxetine (12-18 mg daily) + SSRI (N = 232) and fixed-dose edivoxetine (6 mg daily) + SSRI (N = 226) with placebo + SSRI (N = 231); and study 3 compared flexible-dose edivoxetine (12-18 mg daily) + SSRI (N = 230) with placebo + SSRI (N = 219). The primary outcome was mean change from randomization baseline to week 8 in MADRS total score, analyzed using repeated measures analysis. RESULTS: Each trial failed to meet the primary and most of the secondary objectives. The least-squares mean changes in MADRS total score were as follows-study 1: -8.5 (edivoxetine 12 mg + SSRI), -8.7 (edivoxetine 18 mg + SSRI), and -7.8 (placebo + SSRI); study 2: -9.4 (edivoxetine 12-18 mg + SSRI), -9.6 (edivoxetine 6 mg + SSRI), and -9.4 (placebo + SSRI); and study 3: -8.7 (edivoxetine 12-18 mg + SSRI) and -8.5 (placebo + SSRI). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive edivoxetine treatment for patients with major depressive disorder who were partial responders to SSRIs did not significantly improve efficacy outcomes. TRIALS REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01173601, NCT01187407, NCT01185340.