Sustained response of galcanezumab in migraine prevention: Patient-level data from a post hoc analysis in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, at population and individual patient levels, the sustained response of reduction in migraine headache days in patients with migraine treated with galcanezumab. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of double-blind galcanezumab studies in patients with migraine: two 6-month episodic migraine (EM; EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2), one 3-month chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN), and one 3-month treatment-resistant migraine (CONQUER). Patients received monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 120 mg (after 240 mg initial loading dose), galcanezumab 240 mg, or placebo. In the EM and CM studies, the proportions of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% (EM only) reduction from baseline in average monthly migraine headache days from Months 1 to 3 and Months 4 to 6 were evaluated. A mean monthly response rate was estimated. The sustained effect was defined as maintaining ≥50% response for ≥3 consecutive months in the patient-level data for EM and CM. RESULTS: A total of 3348 patients with EM or CM from the EVOLVE-1/EVOLVE-2 (placebo, n = 894, galcanezumab, n = 879), REGAIN (placebo, n = 558, galcanezumab, n = 555), and CONQUER (EM: placebo, n = 132, galcanezumab, n = 137; CM: placebo, n = 98, galcanezumab, n = 95) studies were included. Patients were predominantly female, White, and had monthly migraine headache day averages ranging from 9.1 to 9.5 days (EM) and 18.1 to 19.6 days (CM). In patients with EM and CM, 19.0% and 22.6% of galcanezumab-treated patients, respectively, had significantly higher maintenance of ≥50% response for all months in the double-blind period compared to 8.0% and 1.5% of placebo-treated patients. The odds ratios (OR) of achieving clinical response for EM and CM were double with galcanezumab (OR = 3.0 [95% CI 1.8, 4.8] and OR = 6.3 [95% CI 1.7, 22.7], respectively). At the individual patient level, of patients who had ≥75% response at Month 3 in the galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg dose groups and placebo group, 39.9% (55/138) and 43.0% (61/142), respectively, of galcanezumab-treated patients maintained ≥75% response during Months 4-6 compared to 32.7% (51/156) with placebo. CONCLUSION: More galcanezumab-treated patients achieved ≥50% response within the first 3 months of treatment compared to placebo; responses were sustained during Months 4-6. The odds of achieving ≥50% response were double with galcanezumab.

Migraine Headache Day Response Rates and the Implications to Patient Functioning: An Evaluation of 3 Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Galcanezumab in Patients With Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories. BACKGROUND: Migraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients. METHODS: Analyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. RESULTS: Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Because migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.

Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine.

Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients' headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8-3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3-2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1-1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2-2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1-1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.

Atomoxetine Increased Effect over Time in Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treated for up to 6 Months: Pooled Analysis of Two Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in the magnitude of efficacy throughout 26 weeks of atomoxetine treatment, along with impact of dosing, were evaluated in adults with ADHD from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. AIMS: Pooled placebo (n = 485) and atomoxetine (n = 518) patients, dosed 25, 40, 60, 80 (target dose), or 100 mg daily, were assessed. Change from baseline in Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-Investigator Rated Scale: Screening Version (CAARS) total ADHD symptoms score and Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) total score were analyzed using mixed-model repeated measures, with least squares mean change, effect size, and response rate calculated at 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 22, and 26 weeks. RESULTS: Decreases on CAARS for atomoxetine- versus placebo-treated patients were consistently statistically significantly greater at every time point beginning at one week (P ≤ 0.006, 0.28 effect size). By 4 weeks, comparison was -13.19 compared with -8.84 (P < 0.0001, 0.45 effect size). By 26 weeks, mean change was -15.42 versus -9.71 (0.52 effect size); increase in effect size over time was most pronounced in the 80 mg group (0.82 effect size). AISRS demonstrated similar results. Atomoxetine response rate (CAARS 50% decrease) continued to increase throughout 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Atomoxetine treatment in adults with ADHD was associated with small effect sizes after 4 weeks and moderate effect sizes by 6 months of treatment. The data support increased effect size and response rate over time during longer-term treatment at target dose.

Differential response profiles in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: treatment with atomoxetine.

Atomoxetine has been shown to be safe and effective in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this post hoc analysis was to examine response trajectories of pediatric patients treated with atomoxetine. Data were pooled from 7 atomoxetine double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted in pediatric patients between November 1998 and June 2004. Growth mixture modeling was applied to the investigator-rated ADHD rating scale (ADHDRS-Inv) and Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity (CGI-ADHD-S) scores in the randomized acute phase (6-9 weeks) to explore whether there were groups of patients who differed in their response to atomoxetine. Classification and regression tree analyses were performed to identify predictors that can help categorize subjects to different response profiles. Patients (N = 925) were mostly male (73%) and of the combined subtype (74%). Most patients had a response pattern characterized by gradual, modest improvement, while a smaller group experienced early, robust improvement.

Reading outcomes of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia following atomoxetine treatment.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Objective: This study assessed the efficacy of atomoxetine on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children and adolescents having ADHD with comorbid dyslexia (ADHD+D) and the effects of the treatment on reading measures. METHODS: The analyses in this report used data from a study designed to examine the effects of a nonstimulant pharmacological agent, atomoxetine, on reading in children with ADHD+D. Patients ages 10-16 years with ADHD or ADHD+D received open-label atomoxetine for 16 weeks. The ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) and reading subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA) were assessed. Changes in ADHD symptoms and reading scores were also analyzed by ADHD subtype. Treatment effect sizes and correlations between changes in ADHDRS and K-TEA scores were calculated. RESULTS: After atomoxetine treatment, both ADHD and ADHD+D patient groups showed significant reduction in ADHD symptom and improvements in K-TEA reading scores. The range of treatment effect sizes on K-TEA scores was 0.35-0.53 for the ADHD group and 0.50-0.62 for the ADHD+D group. Pearson's correlation coefficients revealed only a few weak correlations between changes in ADHD symptoms and reading scores, regardless of diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD symptoms and K-TEA reading scores improved for both the ADHD and ADHD+D groups following atomoxetine treatment. Correlation analyses indicate that improvements in reading outcomes cannot be explained by a reduction of ADHD symptoms alone. These findings support further exploration of the potential effects of atomoxetine on reading in children with ADHD and dyslexia or dyslexia alone.

Meta-analysis of suicide-related behavior or ideation in child, adolescent, and adult patients treated with atomoxetine.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis examined suicide-related events in the acute phases of double-blind, placebo-controlled atomoxetine trials in pediatric and adult patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: A total of 3883 pediatric and 3365 adult patients were included. Potential events were identified from the adverse events database using a text-string search. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (MHRR) were calculated for potential suicide-related events categorized according to United States Food and Drug Administration defined codes. RESULTS: In this data set, no completed suicides were reported in the pediatric or adult populations. One pediatric (attempted suicide) (and no adult patient events) was categorized as suicidal behavior in the atomoxetine group. The frequency of combined suicidal behavior or ideation with atomoxetine treatment was 0.37% in pediatric patients (vs. 0.07% with placebo) and 0.11% in adults (vs. 0.12% with placebo) and the risk compared with placebo was not statistically significant (MHRR=1.57; p=0.42 and MHRR=0.96; p=0.96, respectively). In pediatric patients, suicidal ideation only was reported more frequently compared with placebo (MHRR=1.63; p=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Overall in this data set, no completed suicides and 1 pediatric patient suicidal behavior event were reported in atomoxetine-treated pediatric and adult patients. Suicidal ideation was uncommon among atomoxetine-treated pediatric and adult patients, although it was reported more frequently in atomoxetine-treated pediatric patients compared with placebo; the reporting rate difference was not statistically significant. The MHRR of suicidal ideation was consistent with a previous meta-analysis of similar design. There was no evidence of increased risk for suicidal behavior in atomoxetine-treated pediatric or adult patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . The data reported are from an analysis of 23 pediatric and 9 adult clinical trials completed between 1998 and 2011. Ten pediatric (Studies HFBD, HFBK, LYAC, LYAS, LYAT, LYAW, LYAX, LYBG, LYBI, and LYBP) and two adult trials (Studies LYAA and LYAO) were conducted before the requirement to post trials at initiation (ongoing as of July 1, 2005) and, therefore, do not have a registration number. The registration numbers for the 13 pediatric trials meeting this requirement are: NCT00191698 (LYBX), NCT00486122 (LYCC), NCT00386581 (LYCZ), NCT00485459 (S010), NCT00191542 (LY15), NCT00191295 (LYBC), NCT00191906 (LYCK), NCT00192023 (LYCY), NCT00191945 (LYDM), NCT00546910 (LYDV), NCT00406354 (LYDW), NCT00380692 (S017), and NCT00607919 (LYEB). For the seven adult trials, the registration numbers are: NCT00190931 (LYBV), NCT00190957 (LYBY), NCT00190736 (LYCU), NCT00190775 (LYCW), NCT00190879 (LYDQ), NCT00510276 (LYDZ), and NCT00962104 (LYEE).

Atomoxetine tolerability in pediatric and adult patients receiving different dosing strategies.

OBJECTIVE: Examine how different dosing schedules and recent stimulant therapy effect incidence, time to onset, and duration of common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) during atomoxetine treatment. METHOD: Post hoc analyses including safety data (open-ended questions) from 22 pediatric and 3 adult atomoxetine trials (1998-2009) in patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Most common TEAEs were determined by incidence rates and frequency of consumer and clinician inquiries. Onset and duration of TEAEs with slow versus fast titration, once-daily versus twice-daily dosing, and previous stimulant exposure were compared among treatment groups using Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: In pediatric patients, the most commonly reported TEAEs were abdominal pain, decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, somnolence, and vomiting; time to onset of TEAEs was significantly shorter for once-daily versus twice-daily dosing for all TEAEs (P ≤ .007) and for fast versus slow titration for abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and somnolence (all P values ≤ .009); duration of TEAEs with once-daily dosing was significantly longer for decreased appetite (P = .001) and nausea (P = .041); and more common in stimulant-naive patients versus patients with prior stimulant use were abdominal pain, decreased appetite, and fatigue (P ≤ .047). In adult patients, the most commonly reported TEAEs (erectile dysfunction data were excluded) were nausea, insomnia, decreased appetite, urinary hesitation/urinary retention, and fatigue; insomnia had a significantly shorter time to onset and longer duration with twice-daily versus once-daily dosing (P ≤ .032) and fast versus slow titration (P ≤ .007). CONCLUSIONS: Time to onset and resolution of TEAEs appear dependent on dosing schedule and titration speed. These findings can help to better manage tolerability issues and set appropriate expectations for clinicians and patients during atomoxetine titration, potentially improving treatment adherence and success.

Atomoxetine treatment in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared two atomoxetine titration dosing schedules and two atomoxetine maintenance doses for treating adolescent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. METHODS: Adolescents (N = 267) were randomized to a slow or fast titration schedule. Patients who responded continued on a 40-week maintenance treatment, randomized to either 0.8 or 1.4 mg/kg/day. RESULTS: During the acute period, significant benefit was demonstrated with both titration schedules on the ADHD Rating Scale total score. Although patients in both groups maintained benefit relative to week 0, statistically significant loss of benefit was found for patients maintained on 0.8 mg/kg/day but not on 1.4 mg/kg/day. A similar pattern was observed on the Clinical Global Impressions-ADHD-Severity scores and Life Participation Scale for ADHD-Child Version scores. Mean grades for most subjects improved for patients in both maintenance treatment groups although most improvements were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In adolescents with ADHD, treatment benefit at 8 weeks was better maintained long-term with 1.4 mg/kg/day than with 0.8 mg/kg/day. Improvement in adaptive functioning and age-appropriate developmental function was also demonstrated. Atomoxetine 0.8 and 1.4 mg/kg/day were equally well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: Maintenance of benefit with atomoxetine hydrochloride in adolescents with ADHD, NCT00191035.