The Spectrum of Response to Erenumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine and Subgroup Analysis of Patients Achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% Response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) response thresholds, using data from the 6-month double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Migraine Prevention (STRIVE) pivotal clinical trial. METHODS: Enrolled patients with episodic migraine (EM; ≥4 MMD and <15 monthly headache days) were randomized (1:1:1) to erenumab 70 mg (n = 312), erenumab 140 mg (n = 318), or placebo (n = 316) once monthly. We determined the proportions of patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in MMD over the last 3 months of the STRIVE DBTP (months 4 through 6) and conducted post hoc analyses to contextualize the treatment benefit in patient subgroups achieving, and not achieving, these response thresholds. Outcome measures included changes in MMD, acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: The proportions of patients with a reduction in MMD from baseline were greater for erenumab than for placebo at all response thresholds. As previously reported for the ≥50% response threshold, 135/312 (43.3%) of patients on erenumab 70 mg and 159/318 (50.0%) on erenumab 140 mg responded, vs 84/316 (26.6%) for placebo. At months 4 through 6, 65/312 (20.8%) and 70/318 (22.0%) of those on erenumab 70 mg and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% reductions vs 25/316 (7.9%) on placebo. A reduction of 100% response, which required no migraine days over 3 consecutive months based on observed data, was achieved by 10/312 (3.2%) of patients treated with erenumab 70 mg and 16/318 (5.0%) for erenumab 140 mg, vs 9/316 (2.8%) for placebo. At all response thresholds, responders achieved numerically greater reductions in mean MMD and MSMD, and greater improvements in disability than did the overall population; importantly, these remarkable responses were noted early. Meanwhile, 60/312 (19.2%) and 53/318 (16.7%) patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, had no reduction in MMD from baseline in months 4 through 6, compared with 104/316 (32.9%) patients on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The responses at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% thresholds provide context for establishing realistic patient and physician expectations regarding the magnitude of treatment benefit that may be achieved by patients with EM responding to erenumab (STRIVE, NCT02456740).

One-year sustained efficacy of erenumab in episodic migraine: Results of the STRIVE study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy and tolerability of 1-year erenumab treatment in patients with episodic migraine. METHODS: Patients were randomized (n = 955; 1:1:1) during the 24-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) to monthly subcutaneous placebo or erenumab 70 or 140 mg. At week 24, 845 patients were rerandomized (1:1) to erenumab 70 or 140 mg during the 28-week dose-blinded active-treatment phase (ATP). Monthly migraine days (MMD), achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in MMD, and safety/tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Mean MMD at DBTP baseline was 8.3. At week 52, mean changes (SE) from pre-DBTP baseline/week 24 (pre-ATP baseline) in MMD were -4.2 (0.2)/-1.1 (0.2) (70 mg) and -4.6 (0.2)/-1.8 (0.2) (140 mg) irrespective of treatment during the DBTP. For patients reducing dose from 140 (DBTP) to 70 mg (ATP), change in MMD from week 24 to 52 was -0.1 (0.3), and for those increasing from 70 (DBTP) to 140 mg (ATP), -1.8 (0.3). At week 52, 61.0%, 38.5%, and 19.8% of patients on erenumab 70 mg, and 64.9%, 40.8%, and 21.2% on erenumab 140 mg, achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in MMD from DBTP baseline, respectively. Among erenumab-treated patients in DBTP who showed ≥50% reduction in MMD during the last 3 months of DBTP and completed ATP, 86% showed sustained responses at ≥50% during the last 3 months of ATP. Safety of erenumab in ATP was similar to DBTP; exposure-adjusted incidence rates of adverse events were similar for either dose. CONCLUSION: Over 52 weeks, erenumab provided sustained efficacy in episodic migraine; the safety profiles were similar between erenumab dose groups in the presence of dose blinding. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02456740. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: Class II evidence that 52 weeks of treatment with erenumab 70 and 140 mg subcutaneously monthly results in sustained reductions in monthly migraine days and similar dose tolerability for patients with episodic migraine.

The spectrum of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and subgroup analysis of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab across the spectrum of response thresholds (≥50%, ≥75%, 100%) based on monthly migraine days (MMD) reduction in patients with chronic migraine from a 12-week, randomized study (NCT02066415). METHODS: Patients (n = 667) received (3:2:2) placebo or erenumab 70/140 mg once-monthly. The proportion of patients achieving a given response threshold was assessed. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to contextualize the actual treatment benefit in subgroups of patients achieving (or not) specified response thresholds. Outcome measures included MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) and disability. RESULTS: The proportion of patients responding to erenumab exceeded that of placebo at the ≥50% and ≥75% response thresholds. At month 3, 39.9% and 41.2% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥50% response versus placebo (23.5%). Similarly, at month 3, 17.0% and 20.9% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% response versus placebo (7.8%). Compared with the overall erenumab-treated population (change in MMD: -6.6 [both 70 and 140 mg]), ≥50% responders showed MMD reductions of -12.2/-12.5 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -2.6/-2.2 for those not achieving ≥50% response. ≥75% responders showed MMD reductions of -13.9/-14.8 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -5.0/-4.3 for those not achieving ≥75% response. Relative improvements in MSMD and disability were observed in responders versus overall erenumab-treated population. CONCLUSION: For erenumab-treated patients achieving ≥50% response, the actual reduction in MMD was almost twice that of the overall population. These findings provide context for setting realistic expectations regarding actual treatment benefit experienced by patients responding to treatment.

Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients with migraine in Japan: A retrospective analysis of health insurance claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns of migraine patients in the Japan Medical Data Center (JMDC) database. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient migraine diagnoses, ≥1 outpatient diagnosis and ≥1 migraine-specific acute treatment (triptan or ergotamine), or ≥2 migraine-specific acute treatments from 1 May 2011 to 30 April 2014 were identified. Patients were required to be enrolled in a health plan for ≥1 year before and after the index date. The first migraine diagnosis or acute treatment defined the index date. Patients were stratified by the migraine treatments observed after the index date (i.e. migraine-specific acute treatment only [AT], prophylactic with or without migraine-specific acute treatment [PT], or no treatment [NT]) and described regarding the first migraine treatment regimen and subsequent treatment patterns during up to 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 16,443 patients met the eligibility criteria (9873 AT, 3022 PT, and 3548 NT). AT patients had mean (SD) 10.3 (20.5) acute treatment days during 1-year follow-up, and 81.9% received triptans. When assessing the first migraine treatment regimen during follow-up in PT patients, 29.2% received prophylactic treatment only and 51.7% received both acute and prophylactic treatment. Calcium-channel blockers with or without concomitant triptans (34.4%) were the most common first regimen. Approximately 62.2% discontinued initial prophylactic treatment after an average of 61.2 days (SD = 65.3) of persistent treatment. Among discontinuers, 15.2% reinitiated original treatment and 7.0% switched treatment post-discontinuation within a year, while the remaining patients did not receive prophylactic therapy following discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Among Japanese migraine patients, prophylactic use was low and associated with a high rate of discontinuation following a brief treatment period. Many patients reinitiated or switched treatment following discontinuation, while a significant proportion of patients remained discontinued from prophylactic therapy, suggesting a high unmet need.

Erenumab in chronic migraine with medication overuse: Subgroup analysis of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody, in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 667 adults with chronic migraine were randomized (3:2:2) to placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg), stratified by region and medication overuse status. Data from patients with baseline medication overuse at baseline were used to assess changes in monthly migraine days, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days. RESULTS: Of 667 patients randomized, 41% (n = 274) met medication overuse criteria. In the medication overuse subgroup, erenumab 70 or 140 mg groups had greater reductions than the placebo group at month 3 in monthly migraine days (mean [95% confidence interval] -6.6 [-8.0 to -5.3] and -6.6 [-8.0 to -5.3] vs -3.5 [-4.6 to -2.4]) and acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (-5.4 [-6.5 to -4.4] and -4.9 [-6.0 to -3.8] vs -2.1 [-3.0 to -1.2]). In the placebo and 70 and 140 mg groups, ≥50% reductions in monthly migraine days were achieved by 18%, 36% (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.67 [1.36-5.22]) and 35% (odds ratio 2.51 [1.28-4.94]). These clinical responses paralleled improvements in patient-reported outcomes with a consistent benefit of erenumab across multiple measures of impact, disability, and health-related quality of life. The observed treatment effects were similar in the non-medication overuse subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication treatment days in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse, improving disability and quality of life. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02066415. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that erenumab reduces monthly migraine days at 3 months in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse.

Migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with erenumab.

Background We evaluated the effect of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, on migraine-related disability, impact, and health-related quality of life among patients with episodic migraine. Methods Patients enrolled in a phase 3, 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of once-monthly erenumab 70 and 140 mg for migraine prevention (STRIVE) used an eDiary during the baseline and double-blind treatment phases to complete validated, specific questionnaires, including the modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire; Headache Impact Test; and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire-role function-restrictive (MSQ-RFR), -role function-preventive (MSQ-RFP), and -emotional function (MSQ-EF). Results A total of 955 patients were randomized to receive erenumab 70 mg (n = 317), erenumab 140 mg (n = 319), or placebo (n = 319). Erenumab versus placebo resulted in significantly greater improvements in all patient-reported outcomes; changes from baseline were numerically higher with 140 mg erenumab. Improvements occurred rapidly and were maintained over 6 months of treatment. Between-group differences from placebo over months 4-6 for the 70- and 140-mg dose groups were, respectively, -2.1 and -2.8 for modified (monthly) Migraine Disability Assessment Questionnaire, -2.1 and -2.3 for Headache Impact Test, 5.1 and 6.5 for MSQ-RFR, 4.2 and 5.4 for MSQ-RFP, and 5.2 and 6.7 for MSQ-EF ( p < 0.001 for all). Erenumab also significantly reduced the proportion of patients with severe and very severe migraine-related disability and increased the proportion of patients with clinically meaningful improvements in migraine-related impact and health-related quality of life. Conclusion Erenumab reduced migraine disability and impact and improved patients' health-related quality of life, reinforcing its role as a promising new therapy for migraine prevention.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Effect of Erenumab on Exercise Time During a Treadmill Test in Patients With Stable Angina.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential impact of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, on total exercise time (TET), time to exercise-induced angina, and ST depression in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with stable angina due to documented coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: The relative importance of the CGRP receptor pathway during myocardial ischemia has not been established. METHODS: An exercise treadmill test was conducted following a single IV infusion of erenumab 140 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in exercise duration as measured by TET with a noninferiority margin of -90 seconds. Safety follow-up visits occurred through week 12. Eighty-eight participants were included in the analysis. RESULTS: LS mean (SE) change in TET was -2.9 [14.8] seconds in the erenumab group and 8.1 [14.4] seconds in placebo; adjusted mean (90% CI) treatment difference was -11.0 (-44.9, 22.9) seconds. The CI lower bound (-44.9 sec) did not reach pre-defined non-inferiority margin of -90 seconds, demonstrating that TET change from baseline in the erenumab group was non-inferior to placebo. There was no difference in time to exercise-induced angina in erenumab and placebo groups (median [90% CI] time of 500 [420, 540] vs 508 [405, 572] seconds; hazard ratio [90% CI]: 1.11 [0.73, 1.69], P = .69) or time to onset of ≥1 mm ST-segment depression (median [90% CI] time of 407 [380, 443] vs 420 [409,480] seconds; hazard ratio [95% CI]: 1.14 [0.76, 1.69], P = .59). Adverse events were reported by 27% and 32% of patients in erenumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab did not adversely affect exercise time in a high cardiovascular risk population of patients, supporting that inhibition of the canonical CGRP receptor does not worsen myocardial ischemia.

ARISE: A Phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine.

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide plays an important role in migraine pathophysiology. Erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, is being evaluated for migraine prevention. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, 577 adults with episodic migraine were randomized to placebo or 70 mg erenumab; 570 patients were included in efficacy analyses. Primary endpoint was change in monthly migraine days. Secondary endpoints were ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, and ≥5-point reduction in Physical Impairment and Impact on Everyday Activities domain scores measured by the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary. All endpoints assessed change from baseline at month 3. Results Patients receiving erenumab experienced -2.9 days change in monthly migraine days, compared with -1.8 days for placebo, least-squares mean (95% CI) treatment difference of -1.0 (-1.6, -0.5) ( p < 0.001). A ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days was achieved by 39.7% (erenumab) and 29.5% (placebo) of patients (OR:1.59 (95% CI: 1.12, 2.27) ( p = 0.010). Migraine-specific medication treatment days were reduced by -1.2 (erenumab) and -0.6 (placebo) days, a treatment difference of -0.6 (-1.0, -0.2) ( p = 0.002). The ≥5-point reduction rates in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Physical Impairment were 33.0% and 27.1% (OR:1.33 (0.92, 1.90) ( p = 0.13) and in Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary - Everyday Activities were 40.4% and 35.8% (OR:1.22 (0.87, 1.71) ( p = 0.26). Safety and adverse event profiles of erenumab were similar to placebo. Most frequent adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection, injection site pain, and nasopharyngitis. Conclusions As a preventive treatment of episodic migraine, erenumab at a dosage of 70 mg monthly significantly reduced migraine frequency and acute migraine-specific medication use. (Funded by Amgen). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02483585.

A Controlled Trial of Erenumab for Episodic Migraine.

BACKGROUND: We tested erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, for the prevention of episodic migraine. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients to receive a subcutaneous injection of either erenumab, at a dose of 70 mg or 140 mg, or placebo monthly for 6 months. The primary end point was the change from baseline to months 4 through 6 in the mean number of migraine days per month. Secondary end points were a 50% or greater reduction in mean migraine days per month, change in the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication, and change in scores on the physical-impairment and everyday-activities domains of the Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (scale transformed to 0 to 100, with higher scores representing greater migraine burden on functioning). RESULTS: A total of 955 patients underwent randomization: 317 were assigned to the 70-mg erenumab group, 319 to the 140-mg erenumab group, and 319 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline was 8.3 in the overall population; by months 4 through 6, the number of days was reduced by 3.2 in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 3.7 in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 1.8 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). A 50% or greater reduction in the mean number of migraine days per month was achieved for 43.3% of patients in the 70-mg erenumab group and 50.0% of patients in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 26.6% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and the number of days of use of acute migraine-specific medication was reduced by 1.1 days in the 70-mg erenumab group and by 1.6 days in the 140-mg erenumab group, as compared with 0.2 days in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). Physical-impairment scores improved by 4.2 and 4.8 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.4 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo), and everyday-activities scores improved by 5.5 and 5.9 points in the 70-mg and 140-mg erenumab groups, respectively, as compared with 3.3 points in the placebo group (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). The rates of adverse events were similar between erenumab and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab administered subcutaneously at a monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg significantly reduced migraine frequency, the effects of migraines on daily activities, and the use of acute migraine-specific medication over a period of 6 months. The long-term safety and durability of the effect of erenumab require further study. (Funded by Amgen and Novartis; STRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02456740 .).

Erenumab (AMG 334) in episodic migraine: Interim analysis of an ongoing open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term safety and efficacy of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor erenumab in patients with episodic migraine (EM). METHODS: Patients enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT01952574) who continued in an open-label extension (OLE) study will receive erenumab 70 mg every 4 weeks for up to 5 years. This preplanned interim analysis, conducted after all participants had completed the 1-year open-label follow-up, evaluated changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions, Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) score, Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQ), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and safety. Data reported as observed without imputation for missing data. RESULTS: Of 472 patients enrolled in the parent study, 383 continued in the OLE with a median exposure to erenumab of 575 days (range 28-822 days). Mean (SD) MMD were 8.8 (2.6) at parent study baseline, 6.3 (4.2) at week 12 (beginning of OLE), and 3.7 (4.0) at week 64 (mean change from baseline [reduction] of 5.0 days). At week 64, 65%, 42%, and 26% achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in MMD, respectively. Mean HIT-6 scores were 60.2 (6.3) at baseline and 51.7 (9.2) at week 64. MSQ and MIDAS improvements from baseline were maintained through week 64. Safety profiles during the OLE were similar to those in the double-blind phase, which overall were similar to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: One-year efficacy, supported by functional improvements and favorable safety and tolerability profiles, supports further investigation of erenumab as a preventive treatment in patients with EM. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01952574. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with episodic migraine, erenumab reduces long-term MMD and improves headache-related disability and migraine-specific quality of life.

Migraine Prophylaxis and Acute Treatment Patterns Among Commercially Insured Patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To describe prophylactic and acute medication treatment patterns, including timing, medication type, and duration of use in migraine patients initiating prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine can be treated with acute and prophylactic therapies. Current treatment options for migraine prophylaxis are associated with poor tolerability and low adherence and persistence. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan® Research Databases to identify adults in the United States with a migraine diagnosis who initiated migraine prophylactic medication (index event) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011. Prescribed prophylactic medications evaluated included topiramate, beta-blockers, and tricyclic antidepressants. Patients were required to have 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Patient characteristics, migraine-specific prescribed prophylactic treatment patterns (including gaps in therapy, treatment switches, and additions of index medications), and prescribed acute medication utilization were assessed. RESULTS: The study population comprised 107,122 patients, with 52,275 (49%) initiating topiramate, 22,658 (21%) initiating beta-blockers, and 32,189 (30%) initiating tricyclic antidepressants. Mean (SD) age was 41 (12) years and 83% were female. Persistence with migraine prophylactic medication was low; 81% of patients had gaps of >90 days in their migraine prophylaxis in the first year. The gap in therapy occurred early in treatment (mean, 95 days), and only 10% of patients restarted prophylactic therapy within that year. Switching from index medication to another prophylactic medication or adding prophylaxis was uncommon (13% and 5%, respectively). One year after initiating prophylaxis, 65% of patients were not receiving any prophylactic therapies. Most patients initiating migraine prophylaxis also utilized acute treatments (81%); opioid use was more frequent than triptan use (53% vs 48%) and was common (40%) among patients without other chronic pain conditions (eg, arthritis, fibromyalgia, and lower back pain). CONCLUSION: Patients with migraine who initiated prophylactic therapy had poor persistence with early gaps in therapy, were unlikely to switch prophylactic treatments, and most discontinued prophylaxis by the end of the first year.

ABT-126 monotherapy in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia: randomized double-blind, placebo and active controlled adaptive trial and open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: Results from a phase 2a study indicated that treatment with the novel α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist ABT-126 25 mg once daily (QD) was associated with a trend for improvement in cognition in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia (AD). A phase 2b program was designed to evaluate a broader dose range of ABT-126 as monotherapy in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. The program consisted of a double-blind, placebo and active controlled study of ABT-126 (dose range 25-75 mg) and an open-label extension study (75 mg). METHODS: The randomized double-blind study enrolled 438 subjects (Mini-Mental Status Examination score of 10-24, inclusive) not currently taking acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. Subjects received 24 weeks of ABT-126 25 mg QD (n = 77), ABT-126 50 mg QD (n = 108), ABT-126 75 mg QD (n = 73), donepezil 10 mg QD (n = 76), or placebo (n = 104). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 24 in the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. Subjects completing the double-blind study could enroll in the 28-week open-label extension study. Adverse events (AEs) and other safety parameters were monitored in both studies. RESULTS: A total of 367 patients (83.8 %) completed the double-blind study and 349 (79.7 %) entered the open-label study. Compared with placebo, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog 11-item total scores from baseline to week 24 (-2.29 ± 0.95; one-sided P = 0.008). No ABT-126 dose demonstrated a statistically significant improvement vs placebo at week 24 in the ADAS-Cog total score: ABT-126 25 mg, -0.47 ± 0.94 (P = 0.309); ABT-126 50 mg, -0.87 ± 0.85 (P = 0.153); and ABT-126 75 mg, -1.08 ± 0.94 (P = 0.127). Rates of serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs in both studies were constipation, fall, and headache. No clinically meaningful changes were observed in other parameters. CONCLUSIONS: In the double-blind trial, donepezil significantly improved ADAS-Cog scores but no statistically significant improvement was seen with any ABT-126 dose. ABT-126 had an acceptable safety profile in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD in both studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01527916 , Registered 3 February 2012 (randomized trial). ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01676935 . Registered 29 August 2012 (open-label extension study).

Adaptive, dose-finding phase 2 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of ABT-089 in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

ABT-089, an α4ß2 neuronal nicotinic receptor partial agonist, was evaluated for efficacy and safety in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease patients receiving stable doses of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. This phase 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept, and dose-finding study adaptively randomized patients to receive ABT-089 (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, or 35 mg once daily) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, cognition subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. A Bayesian response-adaptive randomization algorithm dynamically assigned allocation probabilities based on interim ADAS-Cog total scores. A normal dynamic linear model for dose-response relationships and a longitudinal model for predicting final ADAS-cog score were employed in the algorithm. Stopping criteria for futility or success were defined. The futility stopping criterion was met, terminating the study with 337 patients randomized. No dose-response relationship was observed and no dose demonstrated statistically significant improvement over placebo on ADAS-Cog or any secondary endpoint. ABT-089 was well tolerated at all dose levels. When administered as adjunctive therapy to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, ABT-089 was not efficacious in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. The adaptive study design enabled the examination of a broad dose range, enabled rapid determination of futility, and reduced patient exposure to nonefficacious doses of the investigational compound.

A phase 2 randomized, controlled trial of the α7 agonist ABT-126 in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of the novel α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist ABT-126 were investigated in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia (AD). METHODS: Subjects not currently receiving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors were randomized to ABT-126 (5 or 25 mg once daily), donepezil 10 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline to final evaluation in the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. RESULTS: A total of 274 subjects were randomized. Although the study did not meet its primary end point, trends toward improvement were seen with ABT-126 25 mg (least squares mean [standard error] difference from placebo -1.19 [0.90]; one-sided P = .095) and donepezil (-1.43 [0.90]; one-sided P = .057) on the 11-item ADAS-Cog total score change from baseline to the final evaluation. ABT-126 5 mg was numerically similar to placebo. An exposure-response analysis indicated a statistically significant relationship between ABT-126 exposure and the change from baseline in ADAS-Cog, with no evidence of a plateau. No clinically meaningful differences in safety were observed among treatment groups. DISCUSSION: Although the ABT-126 25 mg dose did not demonstrate statistically significant improvement, results of the exposure-response analysis suggest that higher doses may produce better efficacy, and the safety profile of ABT-126 in this study supports additional studies with higher doses in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER NUMBER: NCT00948909.

A randomized study of H3 antagonist ABT-288 in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia.

BACKGROUND: ABT-288, a highly selective histamine-3 receptor antagonist, demonstrated efficacy across several preclinical cognitive domains, and safety in healthy subjects and elderly volunteers. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of ABT-288 in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. METHODS: The study used a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled, parallel group design with pre-defined futility criteria to permit early study termination. A total of 242 subjects were randomized in an equal ratio to ABT-288 1 mg or 3 mg, donepezil 10 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline to final evaluation on the 13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. RESULTS: The study was prematurely terminated because futility criteria were met. Point estimates on the ADAS-Cog scores for both ABT-288 dose groups were numerically inferior to placebo but no statistical differences were detected. Donepezil demonstrated statistically significant improvement. Adverse events were generally mild and self-limiting. CONCLUSION: ABT-288 did not demonstrate efficacy in the symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's dementia.

A randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of the H3 antagonist ABT-288 in cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia.

INTRODUCTION: ABT-288 is a highly potent histamine-3 receptor antagonist that has demonstrated pro-cognitive effects in preclinical models relevant to schizophrenia. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of two doses of ABT-288 in the treatment of cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 12-week study was conducted at 23 centers in the United States. Clinically stable subjects with schizophrenia were randomized in an equal ratio to ABT-288 10 mg, ABT-288 25 mg, or placebo once daily while continuing their antipsychotic regimen. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to day 84 evaluation on the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) composite score vs placebo. Secondary measures included cognitive functioning and psychiatric scales. Safety assessments and sparse pharmacokinetic sampling were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 214 subjects were randomized. The mean baseline MCCB composite score was 28.4. Approximately 80% of subjects completed the study. The MCCB composite score mean change from baseline to day 84 was numerically worse for both the 10 mg (1.90, P = .618) and 25 mg (0.64, P = .946) doses of ABT-288 vs placebo (2.19). Results from the secondary measures were consistent with the primary analysis. Subjects' schizophrenia symptoms remained stable throughout the study as evidenced by stable Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores. Overall, study medication was tolerated; however, an increased incidence of psychosis-related and sleep-related adverse events was associated with ABT-288. DISCUSSION: Neither dose of ABT-288 resulted in cognitive improvement in clinically stable adults with schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety evaluation of HSD-1 inhibitor ABT-384 in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: In this study we assessed increased cortisol in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. The selective 11-ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 (HSD-1) inhibitor ABT-384 blocked regeneration of active cortisol and this tests the hypothesis that intracellular hypercortisolism contributes to cognitive impairment. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled phase II study we examine the efficacy and safety of ABT-384 given 10 mg or 50 mg once daily, donepezil 10 mg once daily, or placebo for 12 weeks in subjects with mild-to-moderate AD. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline to final evaluation on the 13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) total score. RESULTS: The study was terminated for futility after randomization of 267 subjects. ABT-384 did not improve ADAS-Cog scores or any secondary end point; however, donepezil significantly improved both cognition and functional end points. Overall incidence of adverse events was similar among treatment groups. CONCLUSION: ABT-384, when tested at doses associated with complete brain HSD-1 inhibition, did not produce symptomatic improvement in AD.

Continuous intrajejunal infusion of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel for patients with advanced Parkinson's disease: a randomised, controlled, double-blind, double-dummy study.

BACKGROUND: Levodopa is the most effective therapy for Parkinson's disease, but chronic treatment is associated with the development of potentially disabling motor complications. Experimental studies suggest that motor complications are due to non-physiological, intermittent administration of the drug, and can be reduced with continuous delivery. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel delivered continuously through an intrajejunal percutaneous tube. METHODS: In our 12-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, double-titration trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥ 30 years) with advanced Parkinson's disease and motor complications at 26 centres in Germany, New Zealand, and the USA. Eligible participants had jejunal placement of a percutaneous gastrojejunostomy tube, and were then randomly allocated (1:1) to treatment with immediate-release oral levodopa-carbidopa plus placebo intestinal gel infusion or levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel infusion plus oral placebo. Randomisation was stratified by site, with a mixed block size of 2 or 4. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to final visit in motor off-time. We assessed change in motor on-time without troublesome dyskinesia as a prespecified key secondary outcome. We assessed efficacy in a full-analysis set of participants with data for baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment, and imputed missing data with the last observation carried forward approach. We assessed safety in randomly allocated patients who underwent the percutaneous gastrojejunostomy procedure. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00660387 and NCT0357994. FINDINGS: From baseline to 12 weeks in the full-analysis set, mean off-time decreased by 4.04 h (SE 0.65) for 35 patients allocated to the levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel group compared with a decrease of 2.14 h (0.66) for 31 patients allocated to immediate-release oral levodopa-carbidopa (difference -1.91 h [95% CI -3.05 to -0.76]; p=0.0015). Mean on-time without troublesome dyskinesia increased by 4.11 h (SE 0.75) in the intestinal gel group and 2.24 h (0.76) in the immediate-release oral group (difference 1.86 [95% CI 0.56 to 3.17]; p=0.0059). In the safety analyses 35 (95%) of 37 patients allocated to the levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel group had adverse events (five [14%] serious), as did 34 (100%) of 34 patients allocated to the immediate-release oral levodopa-carbidopa group (seven [21%] serious), mainly associated with the percutaneous gastrojejunostomy tube. INTERPRETATION: Continuous delivery of levodopa-carbidopa with an intestinal gel offers a promising option for control of advanced Parkinson's disease with motor complications. Benefits noted with intestinal gel delivery were of a greater magnitude than were those obtained with medical therapies to date, and our study is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration of the benefit of continuous levodopa delivery in a double-blind controlled study. FUNDING: AbbVie.

Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel in advanced Parkinson's disease open-label study: interim results.

Levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) delivered continuously via percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J) tube has been reported, mainly in small open-label studies, to significantly alleviate motor complications in Parkinson's disease (PD). A prospective open-label, 54-week, international study of LCIG is ongoing in advanced PD patients experiencing motor fluctuations despite optimized pharmacologic therapy. Pre-planned interim analyses were conducted on all enrolled patients (n = 192) who had their PEG-J tube inserted at least 12 weeks before data cutoff (July 30, 2010). Outcomes include the 24-h patient diary of motor fluctuations, Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), and safety evaluations. Patients (average PD duration 12.4 yrs) were taking at least one PD medication at baseline. The mean (±SD) exposure to LCIG was 256.7 (±126.0) days. Baseline mean "Off" time was 6.7 h/day. "Off" time was reduced by a mean of 3.9 (±3.2) h/day and "On" time without troublesome dyskinesia was increased by 4.6 (±3.5) h/day at Week 12 compared to baseline. For the 168 patients (87.5%) reporting any adverse event (AE), the most common were abdominal pain (30.7%), complication of device insertion (21.4%), and procedural pain (17.7%). Serious AEs occurred in 60 (31.3%) patients. Twenty-four (12.5%) patients discontinued, including 14 (7.3%) due to AEs. Four (2.1%) patients died (none deemed related to LCIG). Interim results from this advanced PD cohort demonstrate that LCIG produced meaningful clinical improvements. LCIG was generally well-tolerated; however, device and procedural complications, while generally of mild severity, were common.

Cerebrospinal fluid cytokine dynamics differ between Alzheimer disease patients and elderly controls.

The time courses of levels of multiple plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytokines in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and in age-matched control subjects were compared. Interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-2, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, interferon-γ, and tumor necrosis factor alpha levels were measured 7 times over a 24-hour period in plasma and CSF using a lumbar catheter. Baseline plasma and CSF cytokine levels were found to be similar in AD and control subjects. However, the CSF levels of all measured cytokines, except IL-6 and IL-8, diverged over time between AD and control subjects, such that CSF cytokine levels in AD subjects were higher than in controls. This difference was greatest at 24 hours after the insertion of the lumbar catheter. In contrast, no differences in cytokine trajectories were seen in plasma. These data suggest that the neuroinflammatory response to lumbar catheter placement differs between AD and control subjects.