Clinical characteristics and patient-reported outcomes of chronic and episodic migraine patients at a US tertiary headache center: A retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) and determine the effect of migraine subtype on patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). BACKGROUND: Prior studies have characterized migraine in the general population. While this provides a basis for our understanding of migraine, we have less insight into the characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes of migraine patients who present to subspecialty headache clinics. These patients represent a subset of the population that bears the greatest burden of migraine disability and are more representative of migraine patients who seek medical care. Valuable insights can be gained from a better understanding of CM and EM in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with CM or EM seen in the Cleveland Clinic Headache Center between January 2012 and June 2017. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (3-Level European Quality of Life 5-Dimension [EQ-5D-3L], Headache Impact Test-6 [HIT-6], Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Eleven thousand thirty-seven patients who had 29,032 visits were included. More CM patients reported being on disability 517/3652 (14.2%) than EM patients 249/4881 (5.1%) and had significantly worse mean HIT-6 (67.3 ± 7.4 vs. 63.1 ± 7.4, p < 0.001) and median [interquartile range] EQ-5D-3L (0.77 [0.44-0.82] vs. 0.83 [0.77-1.00], p < 0.001), and PHQ-9 (10 [6-16] vs. 5 [2-10], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple differences in demographic characteristics and comorbid conditions between patients with CM and EM. After adjustment for these factors, CM patients had higher PHQ-9 scores, lower quality of life scores, greater disability, and greater work restrictions/unemployment.

Adverse Events Reported with Therapies Targeting the CGRP Pathway During the First 6 Months Post-launch: A Retrospective Analysis Using the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System.

INTRODUCTION: Through 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) had received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for migraine prevention: erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab. METHODS: This retrospective analysis evaluated adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) safety surveillance database during the first 6 months post-approval of erenumab (May 2018 to November 2018), fremanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019), and galcanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019). Reporting rates (RR) per 1000 exposed patients were calculated from number of reported events (when product classified as "primary suspect") in each AE category and estimated number of treated patients based on de-identified prescription data (IQVIA database) and were ranked on the basis of frequency for each product. RESULTS: RR per 1000 exposed patients for "migraine" (erenumab, 4.89; fremanezumab, 1.01; galcanezumab, 2.99), "headache" (3.32, 1.27, 3.07), and "drug ineffective" (3.68, 1.14, 1.69) were commonly reported for all three products, as were migraine-associated symptoms ("nausea": 2.94, 0.91, 1.09) and "injection-site" reactions ("pain": 2.94, 0.8, 4.9; "swelling": 0.56, 0.53, 1.25; "pruritus": 0.26, 0.63, 1.14; "erythema": 0.58, 0.71, 1.58). "Constipation" ranked second for erenumab (4.90) but did not make the top ten events for fremanezumab (0.46) or galcanezumab (0.76); cardiovascular events did not rank in the top ten AEs for any product. The frequency of serious outcomes was low, with ≤ 2% of AEs categorized as serious across the CGRP mAbs. CONCLUSION: These results aid in supporting the safety profile of CGRP mAbs in the real-world setting and may provide clinicians and patients with additional insight when considering migraine preventive treatments.

A comparative assessment of neutropenia events, healthcare resource use, and costs among cancer patients treated with lipegfilgrastim compared with pegfilgrastim in Germany.

PURPOSE: We assessed the occurrence of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) and the associated healthcare resource in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy in combination with pegfilgrastim versus lipegfilgrastim. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis using a German health insurance claims database. Adults receiving chemotherapy with a prescription code for pegfilgrastim (n = 734) or lipegfilgrastim (n = 346) were observed over a 1-year follow-up period. Patient subgroups were analyzed according to cancer type and FN risk. FN risk was based on the chemotherapy regimen and any additional neutropenia risk factors. Outcomes were adjusted via regression analysis. RESULTS: Most patients were classified as high FN risk (70.0% pegfilgrastim; 65.6% lipegfilgrastim cohort). The mean age was 58.2 years in the pegfilgrastim cohort and 58.0 years in the lipegfilgrastim cohort, with more female patients than male patients (77.3% vs 79.8%, respectively), and the majority had breast cancer (64.9% and 68.8%, respectively). Overall, 10.0% and 10.4% of patients receiving pegfilgrastim or lipegfilgrastim experienced a neutropenia event (p = 0.82), with 4.4% and 3.5% of patients experiencing a FN event (p = 0.49). The mean neutropenia event-related healthcare costs were €604 and €441 for the pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim cohorts; among patients with lymphoma, these costs were significantly greater (p = 0.03) with pegfilgrastim (€1,612) versus lipegfilgrastim (€382). The mean all-cause hospitalizations were significantly (p < 0.01) higher for lymphoma patients receiving pegfilgrastim (2.76) versus lipegfilgrastim (1.60). CONCLUSION: Overall, patients treated with pegfilgrastim and lipegfilgrastim were comparable in terms of neutropenia occurrences in the 1-year follow-up. In patients with lymphoma, neutropenia event-related healthcare costs and all-cause hospitalizations were significantly higher with pegfilgrastim compared with lipegfilgrastim in this study; however, this should be interpreted with caution in light of the limited sample size and the absence of clinical information.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway-targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]). RESULTS: Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were - 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, - 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, - 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, - 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, - 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and - 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

A real-world study of acute and preventive medication use, adherence, and persistence in patients prescribed fremanezumab in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine in adults, health care decision makers are interested in understanding real-world clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among patients initiating fremanezumab therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained for this retrospective (pre-post) study from the Veradigm Health Insights database. The study period was January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years; had ≥ 1 migraine diagnosis during the study period; and had a medication record for fremanezumab on or after diagnosis during the identification period (September 1, 2018-December 31, 2018). Treatment patterns, including adherence, persistence, and utilization of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 987 patients initiating fremanezumab during the study period, 738 (74.8%) were adherent to fremanezumab by proportion of days covered (PDC; ≥ 80%) and 780 (79.0%) were adherent by medication possession ratio (MPR; ≥ 80%). A total of 746 (75.6%) patients were persistent for ≥ 6 months. Quarterly fremanezumab (n = 186) was associated with higher rates of adherence versus monthly fremanezumab (n = 801) by PDC (quarterly, 91.3%; monthly, 84.9%; P < 0.001) and MPR (quarterly, 92.2%; monthly, 87.9%; P = 0.006) and higher persistence at ≥ 6 months (quarterly, 82.8%; monthly, 73.9%; P = 0.011). After fremanezumab initiation, patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions from baseline in the mean monthly number of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses in patients with comorbid depression and anxiety showed meaningful real-world benefits based on significant reductions in the number of patients who were prescribed antidepressants (baseline, 68.6%; follow-up, 56.4%; P = 0.0025) and anxiolytic medications (baseline, 55.0%; follow-up, 47.2%; P = 0.037), respectively. In a subgroup of patients with comorbid hypertension at baseline, fremanezumab treatment resulted in nonsignificant reductions in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adherence and persistence to fremanezumab in this real-world study was high in patients with migraine, with higher rates observed for quarterly fremanezumab. Patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions in acute and preventive migraine medication use, while a subgroup of migraine patients with comorbid depression and anxiety at baseline showed significant reductions in antidepressant and anxiolytic medication use.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in migraine patients initiating treatment in the United States: results from a retrospective chart study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world data can further support those clinical trial data and demonstrate the full clinical benefits of fremanezumab. This chart review assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab for improving clinical outcomes in adult patients with migraine treated according to real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based, online physician chart review study used electronic case report forms with US physicians. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of migraine, fremanezumab treatment initiation at ≥ 18 years of age after US Food and Drug Administration approval, ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment, and ≥ 2 assessments of monthly migraine days (MMD; 1 within 30 days before treatment initiation and ≥ 1 after initiation). Changes from baseline in MMD, monthly headache days (MHD), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores were assessed over 6 months. These endpoints were evaluated in the overall population and subgroups divided by dosing schedule and number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures. RESULTS: This study included data from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean age at fremanezumab initiation was 39.7 years, and most patients were female (75.8%). In the overall population, mean baseline MMD and MHD were 12.7 and 14.0, respectively. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD and MHD, respectively, were - 4.6 (36.2%) and - 4.7 (33.6%) at Month 1, - 6.7 (52.8%) and - 6.8 (48.6%) at Month 3, and - 9.2 (72.4%) and - 9.8 (70.0%) at Month 6. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also increased over the 6-month study period, from - 6.2 (21.6%) and - 8.4 (14.0%) at Month 1 to - 18.1 (63.1%) and - 16.2 (27.0%) at Month 6, respectively. Improvements in these outcomes over 6 months were observed across all evaluated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated effectiveness of fremanezumab treatment for up to 6 months, irrespective of dosing regimen or number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures, reflecting ongoing, clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

Treatment patterns and clinical effectiveness in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer after first-line docetaxel.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in community settings is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment patterns, sequencing, and outcomes in patients receiving second- and third-line treatment after first-line docetaxel. METHODS: We used a community oncology database to identify patients who progressed after line 1 docetaxel (D) and received line 2 cabazitaxel (DC), abiraterone (DA), or other therapy (DO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using Kaplan- Meier and Cox regression models. Line 3 included subsets DCA and DAC. RESULTS: Line 2 groups (DC = 60 patients, DA = 71, DO = 153) did not differ significantly on demographic and clinical characteristics or median PFS on docetaxel therapy. Cox regression for OS by line 2 groups showed increased risk for DA compared with DC (HR, 1.69; P = .026) when 24 untreated DO patients were excluded. A similar nonsignificant pattern was observed when the 24 untreated patients were included. Of patients receiving DC in line 2, a nominally greater proportion received A in line 3 (57%, 34 of 60 patients) than did patients who received DA in line 2 followed by C in line 3 (25%, 18 of 71). LIMITATIONS: There was a small sample for line 3, and unexamined confounds and selection biases in observational research. Conclusions Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns in community settings following docetaxel are complex and may involve multiple hormonal agents prior to disease progression. Cabazitaxel may not be optimally used in advanced disease. Although Cox regression showed increased risk of death for DA compared with DC, results need to be validated prospectively.

Rhinitis therapy and the prevention of hospital care for asthma: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical trials have demonstrated that rhinitis therapy improves subjective and objective measures of asthma, it is uncertain whether treatment of allergic rhinitis significantly affects the frequency of asthma exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether treatment with intranasal corticosteroids and/or second-generation antihistamines is associated with changes in rates of asthma exacerbations resulting in emergency room visits and/or hospitalizations in patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis. METHODS: This was a nested, case-control study. RESULTS: Treatment with either nasal corticosteroids or second-generation antihistamines was associated with a lower risk of asthma-related emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.77 and 0.34, 0.18 to 0.62, respectively). Patients who used nasal corticosteroids had a significantly lower risk of both asthma-related emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.91 and 0.56, 0.42 to 0.76, respectively), whereas there was a trend toward lower risk of emergency room treatment and hospitalization in patients who used second-generation antihistamines (adjusted OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.26 and 0.68, 0.40 to 1.14, respectively). Combined treatment with both medications was associated with a further lowering of the risk of both emergency room treatment and hospitalization (adjusted OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.73 and 0.22, 0.07 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with asthma, treatment of concomitant allergic rhinitis was associated with significant reductions in risk of emergency room treatment and hospitalization for asthma.