Adjunctive brexpiprazole 1 mg and 2 mg daily for Japanese patients with major depressive disorder following inadequate response to antidepressants: a phase 2/3, randomized, double-blind (BLESS) study.

AIMS: Inadequate antidepressant response interrupts effective treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The BLESS study evaluates the dosage, efficacy, and safety of brexpiprazole adjunctive therapy in Japanese patients with inadequate antidepressant therapy (ADT) response. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group phase 2/3 study randomized Japanese MDD patients (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 17-item total score ≥ 14; historical inadequate response to 1-3 ADTs) with inadequate response to 8-week single-blind, prospective SSRI/SNRI treatment to 6-week adjunctive treatment with brexpiprazole 1 mg, 2 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score from baseline. Secondary endpoints included MADRS response, remission rate, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score. Safety was comprehensively evaluated, especially regarding antipsychotic adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Of 1194 screened patients, 740 were randomized and 736 (1 mg, n = 248; 2 mg, n = 245; placebo, n = 243) had ≥1 baseline/post-baseline MADRS total score. The LSM (SE) change from baseline in MADRS total score at Week 6 by MMRM analysis was -8.5 (0.47) with brexpiprazole 1 mg, -8.2 (0.47) with brexpiprazole 2 mg, and -6.7 (0.47) with placebo (placebo-adjusted LSM difference [95% CI]: 1 mg, -1.7 [-3.0, -0.4]; P = 0.0089; 2 mg, -1.4 [-2.7, -0.1]; P = 0.0312). Secondary efficacy results supported the primary endpoint. Brexpiprazole was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Brexpiprazole 1 mg daily was an appropriate starting dose and both 1 mg and 2 mg daily were effective and well tolerated as adjunctive therapy for Japanese MDD patients not adequately responsive to ADT.

Improved quality of life with fremanezumab in Japanese and Korean patients with episodic and chronic migraine: Results of two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate quality of life (QoL) endpoints from two 12-week trials investigating fremanezumab efficacy and safety in Japanese/Korean patients with chronic (CM) or episodic (EM) migraine. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a leading cause of disability and affects QoL considerably, interfering with work and daily activities, social and family life, and emotional wellbeing. METHODS: This planned exploratory analysis used data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in which Migraine-Specific QoL (MSQoL; Role Function-Restrictive [RR], Role Function-Preventive [RP], and Emotional Function [EF] domains) scores and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores were pre-specified QoL outcomes in individuals receiving monthly or quarterly fremanezumab or placebo. In both trials, MSQoL was assessed at baseline, and MSQoL and PGIC at Weeks 4, 8, and 12. PGIC responders had a score of ≥5 points, indicating significant improvement. RESULTS: Mean baseline MSQoL scores were similar across groups in both CM (N = 565; RR, 60.3-61.5; RP, 78.5-80.0; EF, 69.0-71.4) and EM (N = 353; RR, 68.6-71.1; RP, 83.1-85.7; EF, 76.7-81.9) trials. In the CM trial, all three MSQoL domains improved in both fremanezumab groups at 12 weeks compared with placebo: least squares mean (LSM) and standard error (SE) change from baseline, p versus placebo (quarterly; monthly; placebo): RR 14.9 (1.3), p = 0.030; 15.1 (1.4), p = 0.020; 11.6 (1.3); RP 8.9 (1.1), p = 0.007; 8.6 (1.1), p = 0.013; 5.4 (1.1); EF 13.3 (1.5), p < 0.001; 12.5 (1.5), p = 0.003; 7.5 (1.5). In the EM trial, RR/EF domains improved in both fremanezumab groups compared with placebo: LSM change from baseline, p versus placebo (quarterly; monthly; placebo): RR 16.3 (1.4), p = 0.003; 16.4 (1.3), p = 0.002; 11.6 (1.4); EF 13.0 (1.3), p < 0.001; 11.5 (1.2), p = 0.004; 7.4 (1.3); RP improved in the quarterly group RP 8.6 (1.1), p = 0.010; 7.6 (1.1), p = 0.066; 5.4 (1.1). The proportion of PGIC responders at Week 12 was greater in the monthly and quarterly fremanezumab groups compared with the placebo group in the CM (96/182 [52.7%] and 98/180 [54.4%] vs. 68/179 [38.0%]; p < 0.05) and EM trial (81/118 [68.6%] and 86/113 [76.1%] vs. 38/111 [34.2%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with EM/CM receiving monthly or quarterly fremanezumab, for a duration of 12 weeks, showed significant improvements in their QoL.

Long-Term Safety and Tolerability of Fremanezumab for Migraine Preventive Treatment in Japanese Outpatients: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label Study.

INTRODUCTION: Early discontinuation and poor adherence are common limitations of conventional preventive migraine medications that limit their long-term efficacy. Therefore, a migraine preventive medication with favorable long-term safety is warranted. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of fremanezumab for the preventive treatment of chronic or episodic migraine in Japanese patients. METHODS: In this 52-week, randomized, open-label, parallel-group study, fremanezumab monthly or quarterly was administered in newly enrolled Japanese patients with chronic migraine or episodic migraine. Safety was assessed by monitoring of treatment-emergent adverse events, including injection-site reactions, laboratory and vital sign assessments. Newly enrolled patients and rollover patients from previous phase IIb/III trials who did not receive fremanezumab in this study were included in the immunogenicity testing cohort (n = 587). Efficacy outcomes included changes from baseline in the average monthly migraine days and headache days of at least moderate severity. Other efficacy outcomes included changes in disability scores. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were enrolled with chronic migraine (monthly, n = 17; quarterly, n = 17) or episodic migraine (monthly, n = 8; quarterly, n = 8). The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (64.0%) and injection-site reactions (erythema, 24.0%; induration, 10.0%; pain, 8.0%; pruritus, 6.0%). The discontinuation rate was low (4.0% from adverse events, 2.0% from a lack of efficacy) and no deaths were reported. The incidence of anti-drug antibody development was low (2.4%). Fremanezumab reduced monthly migraine days and headache days of at least moderate severity from 1 month after initial administration, and this effect was maintained with no worsening throughout 12 months. Fremanezumab also led to sustained reductions in any acute headache medication use and headache-related disability at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab administered monthly and quarterly was well tolerated in patients with chronic migraine and episodic migraine and led to sustained improvements in monthly migraine days and headache days of at least moderate severity throughout 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03303105.

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for chronic migraine prevention: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in Japanese and Korean patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of fremanezumab administration in Japanese and Korean patients with chronic migraine (CM). BACKGROUND: Available preventive treatments for CM are limited by various efficacy and safety issues. Fremanezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway involved in migraine pathogenesis, has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in large-scale, international Phase 3 trials. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of patients with CM who received subcutaneous fremanezumab monthly (675 mg at baseline and 225 mg at weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline and placebo at weeks 4 and 8), or matching placebo. Primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the monthly (28-day) average number of headache days of at least moderate severity during the 12 weeks after the first dose. RESULTS: Among 571 patients randomized (safety set, n = 569; full analysis set, n = 566), the least-squares mean (±standard error [SE]) reduction in the average number of headache days of at least moderate severity per month during 12 weeks was significantly greater with fremanezumab monthly (-4.1 ± 0.4) and fremanezumab quarterly (-4.1 ± 0.4) than with placebo (-2.4 ± 0.4). The difference from the placebo group in the mean change (95% confidence interval [CI]) was -1.7 days (-2.54, -0.80) for the fremanezumab monthly group and -1.7 days (-2.55, -0.82) for the fremanezumab quarterly group (p < 0.001 vs. placebo for both fremanezumab groups). The percentage of patients with a ≥50% reduction in the average number of headache days of at least moderate severity per month (response rate) was higher with fremanezumab monthly (29.0%) and fremanezumab quarterly (29.1%) than with placebo (13.2%) in addition to other improvements in secondary endpoints, including reduction of acute medication use (mean change from baseline during 12-week period ± SE: fremanezumab monthly, -3.7 ± 0.4; fremanezumab quarterly, -3.9 ± 0.4; placebo, -2.4 ± 0.4) and improvements in disability scores (mean change from baseline in six-item Headache Impact Test score at 4 weeks after third injection ± SE: fremanezumab monthly, -8.1 ± 0.7; fremanezumab quarterly, -8.0 ± 0.7; placebo, -6.5 ± 0.7). Fremanezumab was well tolerated with a similar incidence of adverse events including injection-site reactions as placebo (patients with at least one treatment-emergent adverse event: fremanezumab total, n = 232 [61.4%]; placebo, n = 118 [61.8%]). CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab effectively prevents CM in Japanese and Korean patients and was well tolerated. No safety signal was detected.

Confidence intervals of prediction accuracy measures for multivariable prediction models based on the bootstrap-based optimism correction methods.

In assessing prediction accuracy of multivariable prediction models, optimism corrections are essential for preventing biased results. However, in most published papers of clinical prediction models, the point estimates of the prediction accuracy measures are corrected by adequate bootstrap-based correction methods, but their confidence intervals are not corrected, for example, the DeLong's confidence interval is usually used for assessing the C-statistic. These naïve methods do not adjust for the optimism bias and do not account for statistical variability in the estimation of parameters in the prediction models. Therefore, their coverage probabilities of the true value of the prediction accuracy measure can be seriously below the nominal level (eg, 95%). In this article, we provide two generic bootstrap methods, namely, (1) location-shifted bootstrap confidence intervals and (2) two-stage bootstrap confidence intervals, that can be generally applied to the bootstrap-based optimism correction methods, that is, the Harrell's bias correction, 0.632, and 0.632+ methods. In addition, they can be widely applied to various methods for prediction model development involving modern shrinkage methods such as the ridge and lasso regressions. Through numerical evaluations by simulations, the proposed confidence intervals showed favorable coverage performances. Besides, the current standard practices based on the optimism-uncorrected methods showed serious undercoverage properties. To avoid erroneous results, the optimism-uncorrected confidence intervals should not be used in practice, and the adjusted methods are recommended instead. We also developed the R package predboot for implementing these methods ( https://github.com/nomahi/predboot). The effectiveness of the proposed methods are illustrated via applications to the GUSTO-I clinical trial.

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for episodic migraine prevention: Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial in Japanese and Korean patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosing regimens of fremanezumab in Japanese and Korean patients with episodic migraine. BACKGROUND: Episodic migraine, which accounts for more than 90% of migraine cases, is inadequately addressed by widely available preventive therapies. Fremanezumab, a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the trigeminal sensory neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide involved in migraine pathogenesis, has demonstrated efficacy in international Phase 3 trials of patients with both chronic and episodic migraine. METHODS: This Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned patients with episodic migraine to receive subcutaneous fremanezumab monthly (225 mg at baseline, week 4, and week 8), fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg at baseline and placebo at weeks 4 and 8), or matching placebo. The primary endpoint was the mean change from baseline in the monthly average number of migraine days during the 12-week treatment period after the first dose. RESULTS: Of 357 patients enrolled (safety set, n = 356; full analysis set, n = 354), the least-squares mean (±standard error) reductions in the average number of migraine days per month during 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab monthly (-4.0 ± 0.4, n = 121) and fremanezumab quarterly (-4.0 ± 0.4, n = 117) than with placebo (-1.0 ± 0.4, n = 116; p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). The proportion of patients reaching at least a 50% reduction in the monthly average number of migraine days during the 12-week period after initial administration was also significantly improved with fremanezumab (fremanezumab monthly, 41.3%; fremanezumab quarterly, 45.3%; placebo, 11.2%; p < 0.0001 for both comparisons) as were other secondary endpoints (p < 0.001 for all comparisons between fremanezumab and placebo). Injection-site reactions were more common in fremanezumab-treated patients (fremanezumab monthly, 25.6%; fremanezumab quarterly, 29.7%; placebo, 21.4%). CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab prevents episodic migraine in Japanese and Korean patients to a similar extent than in previously reported populations with no new safety concerns.

Re-evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of bootstrap-based optimism correction methods in the development of multivariable clinical prediction models.

BACKGROUND: Multivariable prediction models are important statistical tools for providing synthetic diagnosis and prognostic algorithms based on patients' multiple characteristics. Their apparent measures for predictive accuracy usually have overestimation biases (known as 'optimism') relative to the actual performances for external populations. Existing statistical evidence and guidelines suggest that three bootstrap-based bias correction methods are preferable in practice, namely Harrell's bias correction and the .632 and .632+ estimators. Although Harrell's method has been widely adopted in clinical studies, simulation-based evidence indicates that the .632+ estimator may perform better than the other two methods. However, these methods' actual comparative effectiveness is still unclear due to limited numerical evidence. METHODS: We conducted extensive simulation studies to compare the effectiveness of these three bootstrapping methods, particularly using various model building strategies: conventional logistic regression, stepwise variable selections, Firth's penalized likelihood method, ridge, lasso, and elastic-net regression. We generated the simulation data based on the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue plasminogen activator for Occluded coronary arteries (GUSTO-I) trial Western dataset and considered how event per variable, event fraction, number of candidate predictors, and the regression coefficients of the predictors impacted the performances. The internal validity of C-statistics was evaluated. RESULTS: Under relatively large sample settings (roughly, events per variable ≥ 10), the three bootstrap-based methods were comparable and performed well. However, all three methods had biases under small sample settings, and the directions and sizes of biases were inconsistent. In general, Harrell's and .632 methods had overestimation biases when event fraction become lager. Besides, .632+ method had a slight underestimation bias when event fraction was very small. Although the bias of the .632+ estimator was relatively small, its root mean squared error (RMSE) was comparable or sometimes larger than those of the other two methods, especially for the regularized estimation methods. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the three bootstrap estimators were comparable, but the .632+ estimator performed relatively well under small sample settings, except when the regularized estimation methods are adopted.

Challenges on Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials: An Industry Survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Two issues on clinical trials with multiple endpoints were surveyed: (1) the terminology of multiple endpoints, relationship between rare events and endpoints, and differences in multiplicity adjustment between regions; and (2) the current practice on multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation. This article provides a summary of the results of a survey on the first issue. METHODS: The survey was conducted among 63 members of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association from October to November 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-five companies based in Japan and 12 companies based in other countries, 47 companies in total, responded to the survey. The terms co-primary endpoints, secondary endpoint, and composite endpoint were used in a variety of ways. An endpoint for a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely differed between regions. Although the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency did not demand multiplicity adjustment, it was considered in clinical trials with multiple endpoints for approval in Japan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of terminology differed from the definition in the Food and Drug Administration guidance and the European Medicines Agency guideline. There remain challenges on a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely and multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

Multiplicity Adjustment and Sample Size Calculation in Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints: An Industry Survey of Current Practices in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Two issues in clinical trials with multiple endpoints were surveyed: (1) the terminology of multiple endpoints, the relationship between rare events and endpoints, and the differences in multiplicity adjustment between regions, and (2) the current practice on multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation. This article summarizes the results of the survey on the second issue. METHODS: Eligible trials for this survey fulfilled the following conditions: (1) confirmatory phase 3 trial; (2) use of multiple primary endpoints, co-primary endpoints, key secondary endpoint(s) or composite endpoint(s); (3) inclusion of Japanese participants; and (4) protocols created in 2010 or later. The survey was conducted at member companies of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association from October 2017 to November 2017. RESULTS: Useable responses were obtained from 78 trials in 13 companies based in Japan and 9 companies based in other countries. The Bonferroni procedure was mostly used in clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints, while multiple testing procedures that consider a hierarchy of endpoints or a structure of hypotheses were used in clinical trials with key secondary endpoint(s). In sample size calculation, we can consider the probability of study success, such as the probability of statistical significance in at least one comparison of primary endpoints; however, other probabilities were also considered. This survey reveals that multiplicity adjustment and the correlation of endpoints were not always considered in sample size calculation. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials with multiple endpoints, clinical importance was considered when determining multiple testing procedures. Challenges remain with the definition of power, the consideration of multiple testing procedures and the correlation between endpoints in sample size calculation.

Challenges on Multiple Endpoints in Clinical Trials: An Industry Survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Two issues on clinical trials with multiple endpoints were surveyed: (1) the terminology of multiple endpoints, relationship between rare events and endpoints, and differences in multiplicity adjustment between regions; and (2) the current practice on multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation. This article provides a summary of the results of a survey on the first issue. METHODS: The survey was conducted among 63 members of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association from October to November 2017. RESULTS: Thirty-five companies based in Japan and 12 companies based in other countries, 47 companies in total, responded to the survey. The terms co-primary endpoints, secondary endpoint, and composite endpoint were used in a variety of ways. An endpoint for a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely differed between regions. Although the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency did not demand multiplicity adjustment, it was considered in clinical trials with multiple endpoints for approval in Japan. CONCLUSIONS: The use of terminology differed from the definition in the Food and Drug Administration guidance and the European Medicines Agency guideline. There remain challenges on a clinically most important event that is expected to occur rarely and multiplicity adjustment in clinical trials with multiple endpoints.

Current Practice on Multiplicity Adjustment and Sample Size Calculation in Multi-arm Clinical Trials: An Industry Survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: This study provides the results of a survey on the current practice of multiplicity adjustment and sample size calculation in multi-arm clinical trials. METHODS: The survey was aimed at members of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA) and was conducted in 2015. RESULTS: Of the 66 JPMA member companies, effective responses were obtained on 151 trials from 33 companies based in Japan and 11 companies based in other countries. The results from this survey indicate that multiplicity adjustment in confirmatory multi-arm trials is adequate in terms of controlling the familywise error rate. Multiplicity was adjusted in 38.3% of exploratory multi-arm trials. Various multiple comparison procedures (MCPs) were applied, with the fixed sequence procedure being the one applied most frequently. This survey also reveals that there are issues that need to be addressed within sample size calculation. CONCLUSIONS: To adequately design a multi-arm clinical trial, it is important within sample size calculation to consider whether to perform multiplicity adjustment, select MCPs, and define their power.