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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Safety and tolerability of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants for patients with major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to assess the safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants. METHODS: A pooled analysis was conducted on data obtained from the integrated safety database of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRIs. Safety and tolerability assessments included discontinuation rates, spontaneously reported treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory tests, blood pressure (BP) and pulse, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). RESULTS: The analysis included 1260 patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine and 806 treated with adjunctive placebo. Study completion rates were 85.2% and 84.5% (p=0.994), respectively. Discontinuations due to adverse events were 4.9% and 3.5% (p=0.07), respectively. Significantly more patients in the adjunctive edivoxetine group compared with adjunctive placebo group reported at least one TEAE (56.8 vs 43.7%, p<0.001). The most common TEAEs (occurred ≥5% frequency) were hyperhidrosis, nausea, and tachycardia. Mean changes in sitting BP and pulse at the last visit were increased significantly in patients treated with adjunctive edivoxetine compared with adjunctive placebo (SBP: 2.7 vs 0.5 mm Hg, p<0.001; DBP: 4.1 vs 0.8 mm Hg, p<0.001; pulse: 8.8 vs -1.3 bpm, p<0.001). There were no clinically significant changes in laboratory measures. CONCLUSIONS: The tolerability and safety profile of edivoxetine as adjunctive treatment to SSRI antidepressants was consistent with its norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor mechanism of action, and was comparable with edivoxetine monotherapy treatment in patients with major depressive disorder.

The risk of bleeding with duloxetine treatment in patients who use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): analysis of placebo-controlled trials and post-marketing adverse event reports.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety of duloxetine with regards to bleeding-related events in patients who concomitantly did, versus did not, use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including aspirin. METHODS: Safety data from all placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine conducted between December 1993 and December 2010, and post-marketing reports from duloxetine-treated patients in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), were searched for bleeding-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). The percentage of patients with bleeding-related TEAEs was summarized and compared between treatment groups in all the placebo-controlled studies. Differences between NSAID user and non-user subgroups from clinical trial data were analyzed by a logistic regression model that included therapy, NSAID use, and therapy-by-NSAID subgroup interaction. In addition, to determine if higher duloxetine doses are associated with an increased incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs, and whether the use of concomitant NSAIDs might influence the dose effect if one exists, placebo-controlled clinical trials with duloxetine fixed doses of 60 mg, 120 mg, and placebo were analyzed. Also, the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs reported for duloxetine alone was compared with the incidence in patients treated with duloxetine and concomitant NSAIDs. Finally, the number of bleeding-related cases reported for duloxetine in the FAERS database was compared with the numbers reported for all other drugs. RESULTS: Across duloxetine clinical trials, there was a significantly greater incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in duloxetine- versus placebo-treated patients overall and also in those patients who did not take concomitant NSAIDS, but no significant difference was seen among those patients who did take concomitant NSAIDS. There was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in the subset of patients treated with duloxetine 120 mg once daily versus those treated with 60 mg once daily regardless of concomitant NSAID use. The combination of duloxetine and NSAIDs was associated with a statistically significantly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs compared with duloxetine alone. A similarly higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs was seen in patients treated with placebo and concomitant NSAIDs compared with placebo alone. Bleeding-related TEAEs reported in the FAERS database were disproportionally more frequent for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs compared with the full FAERS background, but there was no difference in the reporting of bleeding-related TEAEs when the cases reported for duloxetine taken with NSAIDs were compared against the cases reported for NSAIDs alone. CONCLUSION: Concomitant use of NSAIDs was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding-related TEAEs in clinical trials regardless of whether patients were taking duloxetine or placebo; bleeding-related TEAEs did not appear to increase along with duloxetine dose regardless of NSAID use. In spontaneously reported post-marketing data, the combination of duloxetine and NSAID use was not associated with an increased reporting of bleeding-related events when compared to NSAID use alone.

Efficacy and Safety of Duloxetine in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Who Used versus Did Not Use Concomitant Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs or Acetaminophen: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of 2 Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

This subgroup analysis assessed the efficacy of duloxetine in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) who did or did not use concomitant nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen (APAP). Data were pooled from two 13-week randomized trials in patients with CLBP who were stratified according to NSAID/APAP use at baseline: duloxetine NSAID/APAP user (n = 137), placebo NSAID/APAP user (n = 82), duloxetine NSAID/APAP nonuser (n = 206), and placebo NSAID/APAP nonuser (n = 156). NSAID/APAP users were those patients who took NSAID/APAP for at least 14 days per month during 3 months prior to study entry. An analysis of covariance model that included therapy, study, baseline NSAID/APAP use (yes/no), and therapy-by-NSAID/APAP subgroup interaction was used to assess the efficacy. The treatment-by-NSAID/APAP use interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.31) suggesting no substantial evidence of differential efficacy for duloxetine over placebo on pain reduction or improvement in physical function between concomitant NSAID/APAP users and non-users.

Duloxetine versus placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms: a replication study.

OBJECTIVE: Painful physical symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and can negatively affect patient outcomes. Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in treating MDD and other certain painful conditions; this study specifically evaluated patients with both MDD and MDD-associated pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind clinical trial enrolled adult outpatients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≥20) and at least moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form [BPI] average pain rating ≥3). Patients received placebo (N = 266) or duloxetine (N = 261) 60 mg once daily (QD) (after starting dose of 30 mg QD for 1 week). This study replicated another study evaluating MDD and MDD-associated pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01070329). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes were the MADRS total score (change from baseline at 8 week endpoint) and BPI average pain rating (overall main effect over 8 weeks of treatment). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment score at week 8 assessed functioning as a secondary outcome. Changes were analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM), and the MADRS remission rate (total score ≤12 at 8-week endpoint) was analyzed using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: Both co-primary objectives and the first two gated secondary objectives were achieved: compared with placebo, duloxetine significantly improved the mean MADRS total score, BPI average pain rating, SDS global functional impairment score, and remission of depression at 8-week endpoint (all p < 0.01). The third gated secondary objective, evaluating remission of depression at the last two non-missing visits, was not achieved. The within-group MADRS remission rate was greater for duloxetine-treated patients with ≥50% (versus <50%) improvement in BPI average pain (p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were similar to previous reports. This study did not address the effects of duloxetine on MDD and comorbid pain of a known origin. CONCLUSIONS: These results replicated findings supporting the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine compared to placebo as treatment for depression and pain in patients with MDD and at least moderate pain associated with MDD.

A randomized placebo-controlled trial of duloxetine in patients with major depressive disorder and associated painful physical symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Painful physical symptoms are common in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and may predict poorer treatment outcomes. Duloxetine has demonstrated efficacy in treating both MDD and certain other painful conditions. This randomized, double-blind clinical trial assessed the effects of duloxetine in patients with both MDD and MDD-associated physical pain. METHODS: Participants were outpatient adults with current MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria; Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score ≥20) and at least moderate pain (Brief Pain Inventory Short Form [BPI] average pain rating ≥3) and with at least one prior episode of MDD. Patients received placebo (N = 266) or duloxetine (N = 262) 60 mg once daily. This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01000805). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprimary outcomes were MADRS total score (change from baseline at 8 weeks) and BPI average pain rating (overall main effect over 8 weeks). The Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) global functional impairment score (change from baseline at 8 weeks) was used to assess functioning. Remission was defined as MADRS total score ≤12 at the 8-week endpoint. Changes were analyzed using mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, duloxetine significantly improved the mean MADRS total score, BPI average pain rating, and SDS global functional impairment score (all p ≤ 0.05 for analyses described above). The remission rate was significantly greater with duloxetine compared with placebo (p = 0.001) and was greater for duloxetine-treated patients with ≥50% versus <50% improvement in BPI average pain score (p ≤ 0.001). Treatment emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of duloxetine-treated patients and at twice the rate of placebo included nausea, somnolence, constipation, decreased appetite, and hyperhidrosis. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events were greater for duloxetine than placebo (8.0% vs 3.4%, respectively; p = 0.024). This study did not address the effects of duloxetine on MDD and comorbid pain of a known origin. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of depression and associated painful physical symptoms in patients with MDD and at least moderate MDD-associated pain.

The efficacy and tolerability of duloxetine in the treatment of anxious versus non-anxious depression: a post-hoc analysis of an open-label outpatient study.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the efficacy and tolerability of 12 weeks of open-label duloxetine in adult outpatients with anxious versus non-anxious depression. METHODS: Participants in a major depressive episode (N=249) began duloxetine treatment at 30 or 60 mg daily for the first week, followed by up to 11 weeks of flexibly dosed duloxetine (60, 90, or 120 mg daily). Efficacy measures included HAMD17, HAMA, and CGI-S. Safety and tolerability were assessed by early discontinuation and adverse event rates. Anxious depression was defined by a HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor score>or=7. RESULTS: Duloxetine treatment was associated with a significantly greater reduction in total HAMD17 scores and HAMD17 Anxiety/Somatization Factor scores among patients with anxious depression compared to non-anxious depression. Differences in CGI-S and HAMA scores at the end of the trial between groups were not statistically significant. Remission and response rates at endpoint were similar between groups, but anxious depressives had a significantly shorter median time to response. Discontinuation rates due to any reason, discontinuation due to adverse events, and treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between groups, except for the significantly greater occurrence of influenza in anxious depressives. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine's efficacy in anxious depression was somewhat superior to non-anxious depression; tolerability was comparable between groups.

Effectiveness of adjunctive antidepressant treatment for bipolar depression.

BACKGROUND: Episodes of depression are the most frequent cause of disability among patients with bipolar disorder. The effectiveness and safety of standard antidepressant agents for depressive episodes associated with bipolar disorder (bipolar depression) have not been well studied. Our study was designed to determine whether adjunctive antidepressant therapy reduces symptoms of bipolar depression without increasing the risk of mania. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned subjects with bipolar depression to receive up to 26 weeks of treatment with a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy or a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo, under conditions generalizable to routine clinical care. A standardized clinical monitoring form adapted from the mood-disorder modules of the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, was used at all follow-up visits. The primary outcome was the percentage of subjects in each treatment group meeting the criterion for a durable recovery (8 consecutive weeks of euthymia). Secondary effectiveness outcomes and rates of treatment-emergent affective switch (a switch to mania or hypomania early in the course of treatment) were also examined. RESULTS: Forty-two of the 179 subjects (23.5%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus adjunctive antidepressant therapy had a durable recovery, as did 51 of the 187 subjects (27.3%) receiving a mood stabilizer plus a matching placebo (P=0.40). Modest nonsignificant trends favoring the group receiving a mood stabilizer plus placebo were observed across the secondary outcomes. Rates of treatment-emergent affective switch were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjunctive, standard antidepressant medication, as compared with the use of mood stabilizers, was not associated with increased efficacy or with increased risk of treatment-emergent affective switch. Longer-term outcome studies are needed to fully assess the benefits and risks of antidepressant therapy for bipolar disorder. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00012558 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).