Generalizability of clinical trial efficacy results to a real-world population: An example in migraine prevention.

BACKGROUND: Health care decision makers are often concerned about the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as their results may not apply to certain patients in the real world who intend to receive treatment. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a methodology for assessing the generalizability of clinical trial results to a real-world population, before sufficient and appropriate real-world effectiveness data are available, using individual patient-level data from an RCT and aggregated baseline data from a real-world French registry in migraine. METHODS: The analyses were conducted in 2 steps. First, individual patient-level baseline data from the multinational CONQUER RCT were weighted to match aggregated real-world InovPain registry patient characteristic data. Matched patient characteristics were sex, age, migraine type and duration, number of monthly migraine headache days, and number of monthly headache days at baseline. Second, the weighted CONQUER patient data were used to reanalyze the primary endpoint of CONQUER (least squares mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase) using predefined methodology. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients with migraine were randomized and treated with galcanezumab or placebo in CONQUER; aggregated InovPain data were available from 130 patients with migraine. We identified no important differences in baseline patient characteristics between the 2 prespecified populations, suggesting good external validity for CONQUER. Although this limited the extent of observed differences between the original and matched CONQUER populations, weighting of CONQUER data did help harmonize the 2 datasets and allow the results obtained in CONQUER to be generalized to patients more representative of the real-world French population with migraine. Results of weighted analyses suggested that galcanezumab would be superior to placebo for reducing monthly migraine headache days in a clinical trial in patients with episodic or chronic migraine who reflected the characteristics of patients eligible to receive the drug in France. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that our methods may be helpful for assessing the generalizability of clinical trial results to a real-world population before the availability of substantial real-world clinical data.

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.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Episodic Migraine in China: Results from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™.

Objective: This study assessed treatment patterns, disease burden, outcomes, and unmet needs among patients with episodic migraine (EM) in China using Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP) real-world data. Background: Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating neurological disorder which presents a major public health burden globally. Research on characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns in EM patients in China is limited. Methods: Data were drawn from an existing data set Adelphi Migraine DSP, a point-in-time survey conducted in China (January-June 2014). Internists/neurologists completed patient record forms for the next 9 patients who consulted them in clinical practice; these same patients completed the 'patient self-completion questionnaires'. Descriptive analyses were used to assess key variables: patient demographics, treatment patterns (current acute and preventive medication [AM/PM]), effectiveness, issues with existing treatment, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores. Results: Total of 125 internists/neurologists provided data on 1113 patients with EM (headache days/month <15). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.8 (13.1) years; mean (SD) number of migraine days/month was 3.2 (1.7). AM was prescribed in 86.1% of patients (non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]: 62.7%; triptans: 7.7%), PM in 38.5%, and both in 24.9% of patients. Approximately 55% of patients experienced ≥1 issue with their current AM or PM. Migraine-related symptoms (including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia) were fully controlled in <50% of patients receiving NSAIDs (21.7-38.4%) or triptans (32.4-43.5%). Insufficient response to current AM (migraine headache fully resolved within 2 hours in ≤3/5 attacks) was reported by 42.5% of patients. Mild-to-severe disability was reported by 36.8% of patients with a mean (SD) MIDAS score of 5.8 (7.3). Overall, 58.0% of work time was impaired (including time missed and impairment while working). Conclusion: This analysis suggests, despite existing treatment options, disease burden and unmet medical needs remain substantial in Chinese patients with EM.

Discrete Choice Experiment to Understand Japanese Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Preventive Treatments for Migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) auto-injectors and non-CGRP oral medications are currently available for migraine prevention in Japan. This study elicited the preferences for self-injectable CGRP mAbs and non-CGRP oral medications and determined differences in the relative importance of auto-injector attributes for patients and physicians in Japan. METHODS: Japanese adults with episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine and physicians who treat migraine completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), asking participants to choose a hypothetical treatment they preferred between two self-injectable CGRP mAb auto-injectors and a non-CGRP oral medication. The treatments were described by seven treatment attributes, with attribute levels varying between questions. DCE data were analyzed using a random-constant logit model to estimate relative attribution importance (RAI) scores and predicted choice probabilities (PCP) of CGRP mAb profiles. RESULTS: A total of 601 patients (79.2% with EM, 60.1% female, mean age: 40.3 years) and 219 physicians (mean length of practice: 18.3 years) completed the DCE. About half (50.5%) of patients favored CGRP mAb auto-injectors, while others were skeptical of (20.2%) or averse (29.3%) to them. Patients most valued needle removal (RAI = 33.8%), shorter injection duration (RAI = 32.1%), and auto-injector base shape and need for skin pinching (RAI = 23.2%). Most physicians (87.8%) favored auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications. Physicians most valued less-frequent dosing RAI = 32.7%), shorter injection duration (30.4%), and longer storage outside the fridge (RAI = 20.3%). A profile comparable to galcanezumab showed a higher likelihood of being chosen by patients (PCP = 42.8%) than profiles comparable to erenumab (PCP = 28.4%) and fremanezumab (PCP = 28.8%). The PCPs of the three profiles were similar among physicians. CONCLUSION: Many patients and physicians preferred CGRP mAb auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications and preferred a treatment profile similar to galcanezumab. Our results may encourage physicians in Japan to consider patient preferences when recommending migraine preventive treatments.

Effect of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden in Patients Who Had Previously Not Benefited from Migraine Preventive Medication (CONQUER Trial): A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In evaluating therapies for migraine prevention, emphasis is placed on frequency and less attention is paid to duration or severity. Total pain burden (TPB) combines frequency, duration, and severity of migraine headache, and has the potential to further characterize the benefit of preventive treatment using a single composite measure. TPB was previously used to characterize response to galcanezumab (GMB) in patients with migraine. In this post hoc analysis we assessed the impact of GMB in lowering TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication. METHODS: CONQUER trial patients (N = 462), 18-75 years old who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication, were randomized (1:1) to monthly placebo or GMB 120 mg with 240 mg loading dose. For each patient, monthly TPB in severity-weighted hours was calculated by multiplying migraine headache duration (hours) by maximum severity for each migraine headache day, then summing these daily scores over the month for the monthly score. Changes from baseline in monthly TPB across months 1-3 were analyzed. Spearman correlations between TPB and scores on the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) total and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) were assessed at baseline. RESULTS: Mean (SD) baseline monthly TPB was 192.1 (158.3) and 188.2 (197.4) severity-weighted hours for GMB-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Across the 3-month double-blind period, GMB-treated patients experienced significantly greater mean reductions from baseline in monthly TPB compared with placebo-treated patients, both for mean change (GMB - 82.7, placebo - 15.8, p < 0.001) and percentage change (GMB - 38.6%, placebo 9.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, baseline TPB correlated with MSQ score (r = - 0.39) and MIDAS score (r = 0.40), suggesting good association of TPB with functional and disability outcomes. CONCLUSION: GMB reduced mean TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03559257.

Annual indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: post-hoc analyses from multiple galcanezumab clinical trials.

AIM: This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status. RESULTS: Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and -2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p < .0001) and CM (Int$7129, p = .0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p = .0030; CM: Int$5181, p = .1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p = .0156) and patients with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p = .0340). Employed patients with CM (p = .0018) and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories (p < .0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days. CONCLUSION: GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2-4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.

The Patient Voice: Exploring Treatment Preferences in Participants with Mild Cognitive Concerns to Inform Regulatory Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility of developing a discrete-choice experiment survey to elicit preferences for a treatment to delay cognitive decline among people with a clinical syndrome consistent with early Alzheimer's disease, including the development of self-reported screening criteria to recruit the sample. METHODS: Using input from qualitative interviews, we developed a discrete-choice experiment survey containing a multifaceted beneficial treatment attribute related to slowing cognitive decline for respondents with self-reported cognitive concerns. In two rounds of in-person pretest interviews, we tested and revised the survey text and discrete-choice experiment questions, including examples, language, and levels associated with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, along with a set of de novo self-reported questions for identifying respondents who had neither too mild nor too advanced cognitive decline. Self-reported memory and thinking problems were compared with symptoms from studies of patients with early Alzheimer's disease (e.g., mild cognitive impairment, mild Alzheimer's disease) to determine whether those studies' recruited patients were similar to our anticipated target population. Round 1 pretest interviews resulted in significant simplifications in the survey instrument, revisions to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and revisions to the screening process. In round 2 of the pretest interviews, the ability of participants to provide consistent responses to the self-reported screening questions was further assessed. In addition, to evaluate participants' ability to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey, two interviewers independently evaluated each participant's ability to make trade-offs in the discrete-choice experiment questions and to understand the content of the survey. RESULTS: Round 1 (15 pretest interviews) identified challenges with the survey instrument related to the complexity of the choice questions. The screening process did not screen out seven respondents with more advanced cognitive decline, as determined qualitatively by the interviewers and by these participants' inability to complete the survey. The survey instrument and screening criteria were revised, and an initial online screener was added to the screening process before round 2 pretests. In round 2 pretests, 12 participants reported cognitive problems similar to the target population for the survey but were judged able to understand and independently complete the discrete-choice experiment survey. CONCLUSIONS: We developed self-reported screening criteria that identified a sample of individuals with memory and thinking concerns who were similar to individuals with clinical symptoms of early Alzheimer's disease and who were able to independently complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey. Quantitative patient preference studies provide important information on patients' willingness to trade off treatment benefits/risks. Adapting the technique for patients with cognitive decline requires careful testing and adjustments to survey instruments. This work suggests it is the severity of cognitive impairment, rather than its presence, that determines the ability to complete a simplified discrete-choice experiment survey.

Effects of Galcanezumab on Health-Related Quality of Life and Disability in Patients with Previous Failure of 2-4 Migraine Preventive Medication Categories: Results from a Phase IIIb Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Clinical Trial (CONQUER).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures have a significant burden on quality of life and disability. The CONQUER study evaluated the effects of galcanezumab on patient functioning, disability, and health status in episodic or chronic migraine with a previous failure of two to four migraine preventive medication categories. METHODS: Patients with two to four preventive migraine treatment category failures received galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240-mg loading dose) or placebo subcutaneously, for 3 months (double-blind period). In the 3-month open-label period, all patients received galcanezumab irrespective of the treatment received in the double-blind period. Changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) scores were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients were randomized to receive galcanezumab (N = 232) or placebo (N = 230). At month 3, improvement in the MSQ Role-Function-Restrictive score from baseline was significantly greater for galcanezumab (23.19 ± 1.34) vs placebo (10.66 ± 1.33) [p ≤ 0.0001]. Significant improvements in remaining MSQ domains and total MSQ scores were observed (p < 0.0001) during the double-blind period. MIDAS total scores were significantly (p ≤ 0.0001) reduced with galcanezumab (- 21.10 + 3.32) vs placebo (- 3.30 + 3.28). EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale scores improved for galcanezumab (3.40 + 1.31) vs placebo (- 0.09 + 1.29; p = 0.028). During the open-label period, quality of life continued to improve for galcanezumab, with patients previously assigned to placebo reaching similar results. During both study periods, similar findings were reported in subpopulations with episodic migraine and chronic migraine. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab significantly improved functioning and reduced disability in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine and two to four migraine preventive treatment category failures. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03559257, registration date: 6 June, 2018.

Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine: A Focus Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients' perceptions towards them is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. RESULTS: Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to self-inject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument.

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with migraine and history of failure to 3-4 preventive medication categories: subgroup analysis from CONQUER study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) are associated with substantial headache-related disability, poor quality of life and global societal burden. In this subgroup analysis from the CONQUER study, we report efficacy outcomes from a pre-specified analysis of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with CM or EM and 3-4 prior preventive medication category failures due to inadequate efficacy (after at least 2 months at maximum tolerated dose), or safety or tolerability reasons. The patient population is of particular interest due to evidence of decreased quality of life and increased economic burden among patients with migraine that is inadequately managed and is of interest to decision-makers globally. METHODS: Key outcomes included overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and proportions of patients achieving ≥30% (CM), ≥50%, and ≥ 75% reduction (response rates) in monthly migraine headache days across Months 1-3. Patient functioning and disability were evaluated at Month 3. RESULTS: Of the 462 randomized patients, 186 (40.3%) had a history of 3-4 preventive category failures. Galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significantly (P ≤ .001) larger overall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days (total: - 5.49 versus - 1.03; CM: - 6.70 versus - 1.56; EM: - 3.64 versus - 0.65). Similarly, the ≥50% response rate was significantly (P ≤ .001) higher with galcanezumab versus placebo (total: 41.0 versus 12.7; CM: 41.5 versus 8.4; EM: 41.1 versus 16.5). In the CM group, the ≥30% response rate was significantly higher in the galcanezumab group than the placebo group (CM, 57.5 versus 19.8, P ≤ .0001) as was the ≥75% response rate (13.3 versus 2.6, P ≤ .05). Galcanezumab also resulted in significant (P < .0001) improvements in patient functioning and reductions in disability. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was effective in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with CM or EM who had failed 3-4 prior preventive medication categories. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CONQUER. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03559257 .

Galcanezumab in Patients with Multiple Previous Migraine Preventive Medication Category Failures: Results from the Open-Label Period of the CONQUER Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Results from the open-label extension of the phase 3b CONQUER trial are presented to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, for up to 6 months in patients with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures. METHODS: Patients were 18-75 years old with episodic or chronic migraine and 2-4 standard-of-care migraine preventive medication category failures. After 3 months of randomized treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month with 240 mg loading dose; n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), patients entered a 3-month open-label extension (120 mg/month galcanezumab with a blinded 240 mg loading dose for previous-placebo patients). Primary efficacy measure was mean change from double-blind baseline in monthly migraine headache days. RESULTS: A total of 432/449 patients (96%) who entered open-label treatment completed the study. Mean change in monthly migraine headache days in the total population, which was - 1.3 for placebo and - 4.4 for galcanezumab patients at the end of double-blind treatment (p < 0.001), was - 5.2 and - 5.6, respectively, at the end of open-label treatment with galcanezumab. Among patients with episodic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 0.6 for placebo and - 2.8 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 4.5 and - 3.8, respectively, after open-label treatment. Among patients with chronic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 2.5 for placebo and - 6.6 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 6.5 and - 8.2, respectively, after open-label treatment. Adverse events were similar to those observed during double-blind placebo treatment. Review of data in elderly patients (65-75 years of age) indicated that galcanezumab was well tolerated in this age group, with no safety issues identified. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was effective and safe during open-label treatment in patients who had experienced failures of previous migraine preventives. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03559257.

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Galcanezumab Versus Placebo for the Treatment of Episodic and Chronic Migraine Using the Metrics of Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm.

INTRODUCTION: Subcutaneous galcanezumab was an effective, well-tolerated preventive treatment for adults with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) in 4 phase 3 randomized controlled trials: EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, REGAIN, and CONQUER. Number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) are metrics of effect size used to evaluate benefit-risk profiles. This study evaluated NNT, NNH, and benefit-risk profiles (measured as likelihood to be helped or harmed, LHH) of galcanezumab 120 mg versus placebo in patients with EM or CM. METHODS: Primary efficacy outcomes were responses defined as ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, and ≥ 75% reductions from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2; CONQUER) and CM (REGAIN; CONQUER); corresponding NNTs to achieve respective responses; and corresponding NNHs for discontinuations due to adverse events (DCAEs) among the safety population. Secondary efficacy outcomes were responses for patients with ≥ 2 failed prior preventive treatments due to lack of efficacy and/or for tolerability reasons. All LHHs were based on ≥ 50% response and DCAEs. RESULTS: During double-blind treatment periods with galcanezumab 120 mg, NNT to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses ranged from 4 to 10 and NNT to achieve ≥ 75% responses ranged from 5 to 23 in individual trials. NNH ranged from 93 to 1000, while LHH ranged from 18.6 to 104.6. NNTs were generally more robust among patients with EM than with CM; however, in patients with failure of ≥ 2 prior preventive treatments, NNTs to achieve ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% responses were similar between patients with CM and EM. NNHs were imputed as 1000 for both migraine types. Resulting LHHs were 178.8 (EM) and 127 (CM). CONCLUSION: Across 4 trials, galcanezumab 120 mg demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile versus placebo, based on low NNTs to achieve response and high NNHs associated with DCAEs. LHH values consistently far exceeded 1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EVOLVE-1: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614183; EVOLVE-2: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614196; REGAIN: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02614261; CONQUER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03559257.

Patient-Reported Outcomes for Migraine in the US and Europe: Burden Associated with Multiple Preventive Treatment Failures.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients with migraine, including those who were preventive-naïve and preventive-treated. METHODS: This was a point-in-time, real-world study of patients with migraine in the US and EU5 (France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and UK) and their physicians using data from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme (DSP™). Physicians completed patient record forms (PRFs) for the next nine consulting patients with migraine plus a tenth patient, who did not need to be consecutive, for whom prior preventive migraine treatments had failed at least once, in order to achieve oversampling of such patients. Patients were given self-completion (PSC) forms that included the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Populations of interest included preventive-naïve and preventive-treated patients defined by the number of treatment lines (1-2 or 3+ preventive regimens). Continuous variables were compared using t-test or ANOVA if normally distributed and Mann-Whitney if not. Chi-squared was used for categorical variables. RESULTS: During August-December 2017, 615 physicians (359 PCPs, 256 neurologists) completed PRFs for 5785 patients (71% female; mean age 40 (±14) years; 65% in full- or part-time employment). Of these, 2798 completed a PSC (preventive-naïve/1-2/3+ preventive lines, n=1707/1034/57). Preventive-treated patients had a greater patient-reported burden across multiple measures versus preventive-naïve patients. Preventive-treated patients had lower MSQ scores indicating greater functional impairment, higher MIDAS scores indicating greater migraine-associated disability, and higher WPAI scores indicating greater overall work and activity impairment than preventive-naïve patients. The magnitude of difference was greatest for the 3+ preventive-treatments cohort. Patterns were similar in the US and EU5. CONCLUSION: Among patients with migraine who are preventive-treated, including those with multiple lines of therapy, there remain considerable unmet needs in terms of restoring patient function.

Health-related quality of life in people with predementia Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment or dementia measured with preference-based instruments: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining reliable estimates of the health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) of people with predementia Alzheimer's disease [AD] (preclinical or prodromal AD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia is essential for economic evaluations of related health interventions. AIMS: To provide an overview of which quality of life instruments are being used to assess HR-QoL in people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia; and, to summarise their reported HR-QoL levels at each stage of the disease and by type of respondent. METHODS: We systematically searched for and reviewed eligible studies published between January 1990 and the end of April 2017 which reported HR-QoL for people with predementia AD, MCI or dementia. We only included instruments which are preference-based, allowing index scores/utility values to be attached to each health state they describe based on preferences obtained from population surveys. Summary results were presented by respondent type (self or proxy), type of instrument, geographical location and, where possible, stage of disease. Health state utility values derived using the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) were meta-analysed by pooling reported results across all studies by disease severity (MCI, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, severe dementia, not specified) and by respondent (person with dementia, carer, general public, not specified), using a fixed-effects approach. RESULTS: We identified 61 studies which reported HR-QoL for people with MCI or dementia using preference-based instruments, of which 48 used the EQ-5D. Thirty-six studies reported HR-QoL for mild and/or moderate disease severities, and 12 studies reported utility values for MCI. We found systematic differences between self-rated and proxy-rated HR-QoL, with proxy-rated utility valued being significantly lower in more severe disease states. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial literature now exists quantifying the impact of dementia on HR-QoL using preference-based measures, giving researchers and modellers a firmer basis on which to select appropriate utility values when estimating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions in this area. Further research is required on HR-QoL of people with preclinical and prodromal AD and MCI, possible differences by type of dementia, the effects of comorbidities, study setting and the informal caregiver's own HR-QoL, including any effect of that on their proxy-ratings.

Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories. METHODS: CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group. INTERPRETATION: Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Patient Preferences for Biologic and Biosimilar Osteoporosis Treatments in Colombia.

PURPOSE: Teriparatide is used to treat patients with established osteoporosis but is often reserved for patients who have inadequate response to antiresorptive therapy. Biosimilar teriparatide, which is believed to have efficacy and safety similar to the originator product, is now available in Colombia. However, little is known about patients' preferences for originator biologic and biosimilar treatments. Our objective was to quantify the relative importance that patients in Colombia place on features of injectable osteoporosis treatments including whether the treatment is an originator biologic or a biosimilar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit preferences of patients with osteoporosis treatment devices in Colombia. The survey was completed by 200 respondents at high risk of fracture, with or without teriparatide experience. Each treatment alternative within the DCE was characterized by five attributes: type of medicine (originator biologic, biosimilar), needle length, angle of injection, how to measure the medicine dose, and how long the medicine can be left unrefrigerated. A random parameters logit regression was used to estimate preferences and conditional relative attribute importance, while controlling for preference heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients (mean age = 58.3 years) completed the survey. Most were female (84.5%) and married (54.5%); 50.5% had secondary education or less, 21% had current teriparatide exposure. The attribute with the highest conditional relative importance estimate (standard error) was biologic versus biosimilar (10 [1.11]), followed by needle length (8.06 [1.11]), dose measurement (6.38 [0.87]), refrigeration (3.81 [1.18]), and angle of injection (1.30 [0.66]). Unobserved preference heterogeneity was present and controlled for in the analyses. CONCLUSION: Despite the availability of biosimilar teriparatide in Colombia, patients expressed a strong preference for an originator biologic osteoporosis medicine over a biosimilar osteoporosis medicine, when the efficacy, safety, and cost of the two options were assumed to be the same.

A real-world analysis of patient-reported outcomes in patients with migraine by preventive treatment eligibility status in the US and Europe.

BACKGROUND: Migraine has a severe impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) affecting physical, emotional, and social aspects of daily living of an individual. Preventive treatment has been demonstrated to improve HRQoL by reducing the frequency of migraine headache days. METHODS: The study used data from 2017 Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Program, which is a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their consulting patients with migraine in the United States (US) and five European countries (EU [Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain]). Objectives were to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in the following two subgroups and by region (US and EU): (i) patients who are eligible for migraine preventive treatment (≥4 migraine headache days/month), and (ii) patients who are non-eligible for preventive treatment (< 4 migraine headache days/month). Patient-reported outcome measures that were assessed included the following: Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Version 2.1, Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels version, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment. RESULTS: In total, 5462 patients (US = 1373; EU = 4089) were included in the study (preventive eligible: US = 584; EU = 1942; preventive non-eligible: US = 789; EU = 2147). In the US and EU, preventive eligible patients were significantly more likely to have worse disability as measured by MIDAS than non-eligible patients; preventive eligible patients also had significantly greater functional impairment, worse health utility, and overall greater work impairment (p < 0.0001). Among patients who were preventive eligible, a larger proportion of patients in the US reported that migraine forced them to reduce the number of hours worked as compared with the EU population (29.0% vs 24.7%). CONCLUSION: Patients who were preventive eligible (≥4 migraine headache days/month) demonstrated greater burden of disease across multiple PRO measures; trends were similar across the US and the five EU countries.

Factors associated with long-term impact on informal caregivers during Alzheimer's disease dementia progression: 36-month results from GERAS.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, in caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, factors associated with subjective (personal, physical, emotional, and social) and objective (informal caregiver time and costs) caregiver burden. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal European observational study: post-hoc analysis. SETTING: Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling patients in France and Germany aged ≥ 55 years (n = 969) with probable AD and their informal caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), 12-item Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-12), Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), informal caregiver basic and instrumental ADL hours (Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument), and informal caregiver costs. Mixed-effect models of repeated measures (MMRM) were run, including baseline and time-dependent covariates (change from baseline [CFB] to 18 months in MMSE, ADCS-ADL, and NPI-12 scores) associated with CFB in ZBI score/informal caregiver time over 36 months (analyzed using linear regression models) and informal caregiver costs over 36 months (analyzed using generalized linear models). RESULTS: Greater decline in patient function (ADCS-ADL) over 18 months was associated with increased subjective caregiver burden (ZBI), hours, and costs over 36 months. Increased behavioral problems (NPI-12) over 18 months also negatively impacted ZBI. Cognitive decline (MMSE) over 18 months did not affect change in caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term informal caregiver burden was driven by worsening functional abilities and behavioral symptoms but not cognitive decline, over 18 months in community-dwelling patients with AD dementia. Identifying the drivers of caregiver burden could highlight areas in which interventions may benefit both caregivers and patients.

Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab: Effects on patient functioning and disability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes from baseline in patient-reported outcomes for measures of functioning and disability among patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab or placebo. METHODS: Patients with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days) were treated with either galcanezumab (Evaluation of LY2951742 in the Prevention of Episodic Migraine [EVOLVE]-1: 120 mg n = 210, 240 mg n = 208; EVOLVE-2: 120 mg n = 226, 240 mg n = 220) or placebo (EVOLVE-1 n = 425; EVOLVE-2 n = 450) during 6 months of treatment. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire v2.1 (MSQv2.1) measured the effect of migraine on patient functioning (physical and emotional) in 3 domains, and the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) quantified headache-related disability associated with missed or reduced productivity at work or home and social events. Both were collected at baseline and during the treatment period (MSQv2.1 = monthly; MIDAS = months 3 and 6 only). RESULTS: Differences in MSQv2.1 total score least squares (LS) mean change from baseline (month 4-6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) were superior to placebo (EVOLVE-1 = 7.3 and 6.7 [both p < 0.001]; EVOLVE-2 = 8.5 and 7.3 [both p < 0.001]). Differences were similar for all domain scores (p < 0.001 for both galcanezumab doses compared with placebo), were observed as early as month 1, and were sustained for 6 months for most domains. Differences of MIDAS LS mean change from baseline (month 6) for galcanezumab (120 and 240 mg, respectively) compared with placebo were: EVOLVE-1 = -6.3 (p < 0.001) and -5.2 (p = 0.002); EVOLVE-2 = -9.2 and -8.2 (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with episodic migraine treated with galcanezumab reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in daily functioning and decreased disability compared with patients who received placebo. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) given once monthly improved functioning and reduced disability.