Effect of galcanezumab on severity and symptoms of migraine in phase 3 trials in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated a significant reduction in monthly migraine headache days compared with placebo. Here, we analyze data from 3 randomized clinical trials (2 episodic trials [EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2] and 1 chronic trial [REGAIN]), to examine if galcanezumab also alleviates the severity and symptoms of migraine. METHODS: The episodic migraine trials were 6-month, double-blind studies in patients with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days). The chronic migraine trial was a 3-month, double-blind study in patients with chronic migraine (≥ 15 headache days per month, where ≥ 8 met criteria for migraine). Patients (18-65 years) were randomized to placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg with a 240-mg loading dose or 240 mg. Patients recorded headache characteristics, duration, severity, and presence of associated symptoms with each headache. The outcomes analyzed were changes from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days with nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia, aura, and prodromal symptoms other than aura. Additional outcomes analyzed included the number of moderate-to-severe monthly migraine headache days, number of severe migraine headache days, and mean severity of remaining migraine headache days. Change from baseline in the proportion of days with nausea and/or vomiting and the proportion of days with photophobia and phonophobia among the remaining monthly migraine headache days were also analyzed. RESULTS: Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in reducing the frequency of migraine headache days with associated symptoms of migraine such as nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia, and prodromal symptoms. Galcanezumab reduced the frequency of migraine headache days with aura in the episodic migraine studies. There was a significant reduction in the proportion of remaining migraine headache days with nausea and/or vomiting for the episodic and chronic migraine studies, and with photophobia and phonophobia for the episodic migraine studies. Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly moderate-to-severe migraine headache days and the overall and monthly severe migraine headache days. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab reduces the frequency of migraine headache days and can alleviate potentially disabling non-pain symptoms on days when migraine is present in patients with episodic or chronic migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT02614183 (EVOLVE-1), registered 25 November 2015; NCT, NCT02614196 , (EVOLVE-2), registered 25 November 2015; NCT, NCT02614261 (REGAIN), registered 25 November 2015.

A long-term open-label safety study of galcanezumab in Japanese patients with migraine.

BACKGROUND: Because of the burden of migraine in Japan, there is a need for safe and effective preventive treatments. This study assessed the long-term safety and tolerability of galcanezumab in Japanese patients with episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 12-month open-label study, adult patients with EM who previously completed a 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial were newly randomized to either galcanezumab dose from placebo or continued their assigned galcanezumab doses (all: 120 mg, n = 120; 240 mg, n = 126). Newly enrolled patients with CM were randomized to 120-mg (n = 32) or 240-mg (n = 33) galcanezumab. The primary outcome was long-term safety and tolerability. RESULTS: The incidence of TEAEs was similar between treatment groups. Nasopharyngitis was the most common TEAE, followed by injection site reactions. The discontinuation rate was low (EM = 9.3%; CM = 15.4%) and no deaths were reported. Patients with EM who received galcanezumab in the placebo-controlled trial had sustained efficacy. Both doses reduced the number of migraine headache days in patients with CM. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term treatment with 120-mg or 240-mg galcanezumab was safe and effective in Japanese patients with EM or CM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT02959190.

Efficacy of Galcanezumab for Migraine Prevention in Patients With a Medical History of Anxiety and/or Depression: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled REGAIN, and Pooled EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with and without comorbid anxiety and/or depression. BACKGROUND: Patients with migraine have a higher risk of anxiety and/or depression. Given the high prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and their potential negative prognostic impact, determining the efficacy of migraine treatments in patients with these comorbidities is important. METHODS: The results of 2 phase 3 episodic migraine studies of patients with 4-14 migraine headache days (MHD) per month were pooled. A third chronic migraine study, which was evaluated separately, enrolled patients with ≥15 headache days per month, of which ≥8 had migraine-like features. Patients in all 3 studies were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. The efficacy of galcanezumab on migraine was measured in subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (current or past) and patients without. A repeated measures model was used to compare treatment groups within each subgroup and to test for consistency of treatment effect across the anxiety/depression subgroups (subgroup-by-treatment interaction) during the double-blind treatment phases. RESULTS: Among 1773 intent-to-treat patients with episodic migraine, both doses of galcanezumab demonstrated statistically significant improvements relative to placebo in overall number of MHD for the subgroups of patients with anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.07 [-2.81, -1.33] for galcanezumab 120 mg [P < .001], -1.91 [-2.78, -1.04] for 240 mg [P < .001]) and without anxiety and/or depression (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-2.36, -1.47] for 120 mg [P < .001], -1.77 [-2.20, -1.33] for 240 mg [P < .001]), as was observed for the secondary outcomes of MHD with acute medication use and functional impairment. Among 1113 intent-to-treat patients with chronic migraine, those with anxiety and/or depression had significant reductions in overall MHD frequency with the 240-mg dose (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -1.92 [-3.52, -0.33]; P = .018), whereas significant reductions were observed at both the 120-mg (mean change difference from placebo [95% CI]: -2.29 [-3.26, -1.31]; P < .001) and 240-mg (-1.85 [-2.83, -0.87]; P < .001) doses in patients without anxiety and/or depressions. Significant reductions (P < .01) in MHD with acute medication use were observed at both doses within both anxiety/depression subgroups and for overall functional impairment for patients without anxiety and/or depression, though neither dose significantly reduced overall functional impairment beyond placebo in the subgroup with anxiety and/or depression. In the episodic and chronic migraine studies, the subgroup-by-treatment interaction was not statistically significant for MHD, MHD with acute medication use, or functional impairment (chronic study only), suggesting a lack of evidence of differential effect between subgroups. Furthermore, differences between subgroups in the mean change differences from placebo, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals for the subgroups, indicated lack of a clinical or statistical difference between subgroups for these outcome variables. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients with episodic migraine attaining ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions, and a higher percentage of patients with chronic migraine attaining ≥50% and ≥75% reductions from baseline with galcanezumab compared with placebo, regardless of medical history of anxiety and/or depression. CONCLUSIONS: A medical history of anxiety and/or depression does not seem to interfere with response to galcanezumab among patients with episodic migraine, and both doses of galcanezumab appear efficacious for these individuals regardless of this psychiatric history. Among patients with chronic migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression, the 240-mg dose, but not the 120-mg dose, significantly decreased overall MHD, but neither dose resulted in significantly greater functional improvement. Patients with migraine and comorbid anxiety and/or depression often require additional interventions, and this may be more important in chronic migraine.

The Clinical Relevance of Pain Severity Changes: Is There Any Difference Between Asian and Caucasian Patients With Osteoarthritis Pain?

The objective of the present analysis was to determine whether changes in Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain scores by patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) category and the cut-off for clinically important difference (CID) were different between Asian and Caucasian patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis. This analysis used data from 3 (Caucasian) and 2 (Asian) randomized, placebo-controlled, 10- to 14-week duloxetine studies for the treatment of patients ≥40 years of age with osteoarthritis pain. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to characterize the association between changes in BPI average pain scores and PGI-I levels at study endpoint. The CID was characterized by PGI-I, and the cut-off point for CID in BPI average pain scores was determined by the intersection of a 45-degree tangent line with each ROC curve. Data from 668 Asian and 868 Caucasian patients were available for analysis. Baseline BPI average pain ratings including worst and least pain were comparable between Asians and Caucasians. Ratings for percentage change from baseline to endpoint for BPI average pain scores in Asian patients and Caucasian patients were similar across the 7 PGI-I categories, regardless of age, gender, study, and treatment. The ROC analysis results of cut-off points in BPI average pain scores demonstrated the raw change cut-off was -3.0, and percentage change cut-off was -40% for both Asian and Caucasian patients. Overall, the present analysis concludes changes in BPI average pain scores by PGI-I category and the cut-off for CID were similar for Asian and Caucasian patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis.

Improving Study Conduct and Data Quality in Clinical Trials of Chronic Pain Treatments: IMMPACT Recommendations.

The estimated probability of progressing from phase 3 analgesic clinical trials to regulatory approval is approximately 57%, suggesting that a considerable number of treatments with phase 2 trial results deemed sufficiently successful to progress to phase 3 do not yield positive phase 3 results. Deficiencies in the quality of clinical trial conduct could account for some of this failure. An Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting was convened to identify potential areas for improvement in trial conduct in order to improve assay sensitivity (ie, ability of trials to detect a true treatment effect). We present recommendations based on presentations and discussions at the meeting, literature reviews, and iterative revisions of this article. The recommendations relate to the following areas: 1) study design (ie, to promote feasibility), 2) site selection and staff training, 3) participant selection and training, 4) treatment adherence, 5) data collection, and 6) data and study monitoring. Implementation of these recommendations may improve the quality of clinical trial data and thus the validity and assay sensitivity of clinical trials. Future research regarding the effects of these strategies will help identify the most efficient use of resources for conducting high quality clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: Every effort should be made to optimize the quality of clinical trial data. This manuscript discusses considerations to improve conduct of pain clinical trials based on research in multiple medical fields and the expert consensus of pain researchers and stakeholders from academia, regulatory agencies, and industry.

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

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

Clinical meaningfulness of duloxetine's effect in Chinese patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis: post hoc analyses of a phase 3 randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the analgesic effect of duloxetine in Chinese patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee/hip at individual patient level and report the relationship between pain intensity reduction, overall improvement, and physical functioning. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of 13-week, phase 3, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled study of duloxetine in Chinese patients with OA pain. Patients were randomized (1:1, computer-generated, interactive web-response system) to duloxetine (60 mg once daily, n=202) or placebo (n=207). Patients, investigators, and study staff were blinded throughout the study. Duloxetine's efficacy was evaluated using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OARSI-OMERACT) responder criteria. Analyses were conducted on all randomized patients with a baseline and at least one post-baseline observation. RESULTS: At study endpoint, the percentage of patients experiencing ≥30% pain intensity reduction (30% responders) was significantly higher in the duloxetine group than in the placebo group (63.4% vs 49.7%; P=0.008). The percentage of patients experiencing ≥50% pain intensity reduction (50% responders) in the duloxetine group was numerically higher than in the placebo group (42.8% vs 34.5%; P=0.098). Most of the 30% and 50% responders to duloxetine treatment felt either "very much improved" or "much improved" on the Patient Global Impression-Improvement at endpoint. The 30% and 50% responders to duloxetine treatment also experienced greater improvements in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function scores at endpoint compared with non-responders. The overall percentage of OARSI-OMERACT responders was significantly higher in the duloxetine group vs the placebo group (70.1% vs 54.9%; P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Based on IMMPACT and OARSI-OMERACT criteria, the analgesic effect of duloxetine was associated with clinically relevant benefits in Chinese patients with OA of the knee/hip. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01931475.

Onset of efficacy and duration of response of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: a post-hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: As new migraine prevention treatments are developed, the onset of a preventive effect, how long it is maintained and whether patients initially non-responsive develop clinically meaningful responses with continued treatment can be assessed. METHODS: Analyses were conducted post-hoc of a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II-a study in patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab 150 mg or placebo biweekly for 12 weeks (Lancet Neurol 13:885, 2014). The number of migraine headache days per week, and onset of efficacy measured as the first week galacanezumab separated from placebo were determined. Patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in migraine headache days from baseline at months 1, 2 and 3 were calculated and defined as sustained responses. Non-responders (<50% response) at month 1 or 2 who then showed ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% response at later time-points were calculated. RESULTS: Patients were randomised to galcanezumab (n=107) or placebo (n=110). A significant (p=0.018) change of -0.89±0.11 (galcanezumab) vs -0.53±0.11 (placebo) migraine headache days indicated onset at week 1. Forty-seven per cent of galcanezumab and 25% of placebo patients responding at month 1 maintained response through months 2 and 3. Of non-responders at month 1, 27% on galcanezumab and 20% on placebo responded on months 2 and 3, and 50% of galcanezumab non-responders in months 1 and 2 responded on month 3, vs 24% on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of efficacy of galcanezumab is within 1 week in a majority of patients, and patients receiving galcanezumab are twice more likely to maintain responses than placebo patients. Early non-responders may respond by month 2 or month 3. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01625988.

Maintenance of effect of duloxetine in Chinese patients with pain due to osteoarthritis: 13-week open-label extension data.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to assess the maintenance of effect of duloxetine 60 mg once-daily (QD) in Chinese patients with chronic pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee or hip and to provide additional long-term safety data. METHODS: This was an open-label, extension phase of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Eligible patients were outpatients who met the American College of Rheumatology clinical and radiographic criteria for OA with a rating ≥4 on Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-h average pain. After completing the 13-week placebo-controlled phase, patients originally assigned to placebo were titrated to duloxetine 60 mg QD (PLA_DLX), whereas patients originally assigned to duloxetine 60 mg QD remained on the same dose of duloxetine (DLX_DLX) for another 13 weeks. The maintenance effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD during the extension phase was evaluated by a 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) of the baseline-to-endpoint change in the extension phase for patients who took duloxetine and reported ≥30% reduction in BPI average pain at the end of placebo-controlled phase (placebo-controlled phase duloxetine responders). Other BPI severity and interference items, as well as safety and tolerability, were assessed. RESULTS: Of 342 patients entering the extension phase, 162 (97.6%) DLX_DLX-treated patients and 157 (89.2%) PLA_DLX-treated patients completed this phase. Most patients (76.0%) were female. Mean age was 60.6 years. Mean BPI average pain was 5.5 at baseline of the placebo-controlled phase. Among 113 placebo-controlled phase duloxetine responders, mean change in BPI average pain during the extension phase was - 0.59 (from 2.47 to 1.88); the upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI was - 0.31 and less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of a 1.5-point increase (p < 0.001). Significant within-group improvements in all BPI items were observed for both PLA_DLX and DLX_DLX groups during the extension phase (all p < 0.01). No deaths or suicide-related events occurred. Seven (4.0%) PLA_DLX-treated patients and no DLX_DLX-treated patients discontinued due to an adverse event. CONCLUSION: The analgesic effect of duloxetine 60 mg QD among treatment responders was maintained for the entire duration of the extension phase. Duloxetine 60 mg QD was well tolerated during the extension phase. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identification number NCT01931475 . Registered 29 August 2013.

Effect of Galcanezumab Following Treatment Cessation in Patients With Migraine: Results From 2 Randomized Phase 3 Trials.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab after treatment cessation in randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, migraine prevention studies (EVOLVE-1; EVOLVE-2). BACKGROUND: Galcanezumab is indicated for migraine prevention in adults. METHODS: Adults with episodic migraine were enrolled into EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2, which randomized 858 and 915 patients, respectively, to galcanezumab 120 mg (an initial 240-mg loading dose), galcanezumab 240 mg, or placebo, administered subcutaneously once monthly for 6 months. After treatment completion or discontinuation, patients entered a 4-month posttreatment period. Efficacy and safety from the posttreatment periods are reported. RESULTS: Overall, 740 patients (EVOLVE-1) and 830 (EVOLVE-2) patients entered the posttreatment periods, about 95% and 96% of patients, respectively, completed. In EVOLVE-1, change from pre-randomization baseline in monthly migraine headache days decreased over the posttreatment period from (mean [SE]) 5.2 (0.4) days (Month 6) to 4.1 (0.4) days (Month 10) for 120 mg and from 5.3 (0.4) days (Month 6) to 3.8 (0.4) days (Month 10) for 240 mg, and was stable for placebo (3.4 [0.3] days [Month 6] to 3.3 [0.3] days [Month 10]); differences between each galcanezumab dose group and placebo were statistically significant at each month, except for galcanezumab 240 mg at Month 10 (120 mg vs placebo: P < .001 Months 1-6, P = .007 Month 7, P = .044 Month 8, P = .016 Month 9, and P = .042 Month 10; 240 mg vs placebo: P < .001 Months 1-7, P = .015 Month 8, P = .021 Month 9, and P = .238 Month 10). EVOLVE-2 showed similar results. In both trials, there were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups and placebo for time-to-first loss of 50% response. During the posttreatment periods, 1.6% (EVOLVE-1) and 2.3% (EVOLVE-2) of patients initiated migraine preventive treatments. At Month 10, quality of life among galcanezumab-treated patients was similar to those taking placebo. The most common posttreatment emergent adverse event was upper respiratory tract infections. There were no discontinuations due to adverse events during the posttreatment periods. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab treatment effects were reduced during the posttreatment periods, but did not return to baseline. There were no unexpected adverse events after galcanezumab cessation.

Measures of Functioning in Patients With Episodic Migraine: Findings From a Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2b Trial With Galcanezumab.

Objective - To evaluate 12-week changes from baseline of 2 disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in adults with migraine treated with galcanezumab, an investigational humanized antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or placebo. Background - Preventing headache-related functional impairment is an important goal of migraine preventive treatment and a measurement target for PROs. Understanding which drugs have the potential to improve patient functioning in addition to preventing migraine headaches is vital to lessening patient burden. Design/Methods - This Phase 2b double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults with episodic migraine. Galcanezumab (120 mg subcutaneous injection; n = 60) or placebo (n = 127) was administered every 28 days for 12 weeks. Post hoc secondary analyses were conducted for those who completed 12 weeks of treatment on 2 PROs: The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) v2.1 and the Headache Impact Test™ (HIT-6). Results - Analysis of covariance revealed significant differences in least square mean changes from baseline between galcanezumab and placebo for all MSQ domains including total mean change placebo of 18.63, galcanezumab of 27.36 (95% CI 2.449, 15.008; P-value of .0067); Role Function-Restrictive mean change placebo of 22.40, galcanezumab of 31.92 (95% CI 2.636, 16.518; P-value of .0071); Role Function-Preventive mean change placebo of 13.43, galcanezumab of 19.76 (95% CI 0.476, 12.185; P-value of .0342); and Emotional Function mean change placebo of 16.88, galcanezumab of 26.61 (95% CI 2.789, 16.674; P-value of .0063). At baseline, mean number of migraine headache days (MHDs) did not correlate with MSQ total scores or HIT-6. At 12 weeks post-treatment, MHD correlated with MSQ and HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Change in MHD was associated with change in MSQ domains and change in HIT-6 scores (all P < .0001). Conclusions - In comparison with placebo, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with significant functional improvements as reflected by changes in MSQ scores. Change in MHD was associated with improvements in MSQ and reductions in HIT-6 scores, indicating the clinical importance of these changes in relation to PROs that measure function.

Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial.

Introduction Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide, used for migraine prevention. Methods A global, double-blind, 6-month study of patients with episodic migraine was undertaken with 915 intent-to-treat patients randomized to monthly galcanezumab 120 mg (n = 231) or 240 mg (n = 223) or placebo (n = 461) subcutaneous injections. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates; monthly migraine headache days with acute migraine medication use; Patient Global Impression of Severity rating; the Role Function-Restrictive score of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Results Mean monthly migraine headache days were reduced by 4.3 and 4.2 days by galcanezumab 120 and 240 mg, respectively, and 2.3 days by placebo. The group differences (95% CIs) versus placebo were 2.0 (-2.6, -1.5) and 1.9 (-2.4, -1.4), respectively. Both doses were superior to placebo for all key secondary endpoints. Injection site pain was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event, reported at similar rates in all treatment groups. Both galcanezumab doses had significantly more injection site reactions and injection site pruritus, and the 240 mg group had significantly more injection site erythema versus placebo. Conclusions Galcanezumab 120 or 240 mg given once monthly was efficacious, safe, and well tolerated. Study identification EVOLVE-2; NCT02614196; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614196 . Trial Registration NCT02614196.

Safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: A randomized placebo-controlled dose-ranging Phase 2b study.

Background Safety findings from a Phase 2b study of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, for prevention of migraine (NCT02163993) are reported here. Methods Patients aged 18-65 years with episodic migraine were evaluated in this multicenter, double-blind, randomized study. After randomization, 410 patients were administered 5, 50, 120 or 300 mg of galcanezumab or placebo subcutaneously once every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, followed by a post-treatment off-drug period lasting 12 weeks. Results Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were primarily rated as mild to moderate. Serious adverse events reported in galcanezumab dose groups were appendicitis, Crohn's disease, suicidal ideation, and congenital ankyloglossia in an infant of a paternal pregnancy; each of these were reported by one patient. Adverse events leading to discontinuation with galcanezumab treatment were abdominal pain, visual impairment, and upper limb fracture, each reported by one patient. Treatment-emergent injection-site reactions were reported significantly more frequently ( p = 0.013) with galcanezumab (13.9%) than with placebo (5.8%). Injection-site pain was the most common injection-site reaction (galcanezumab 11.4%; placebo 2.9%, p = 0.004). Upper respiratory tract infection (galcanezumab 10.0%; placebo 8.8%) and nasopharyngitis (galcanezumab 7.0%; placebo 2.2%) also occurred more frequently with galcanezumab treatment. Potential hypersensitivity events were reported at similar frequencies in galcanezumab (3.3%) and placebo (5.1%) groups. Incidence of treatment-emergent anti-drug antibodies in galcanezumab dose groups (4.6% of patients during treatment period) did not appear to have any meaningful effects on safety, the pharmacokinetics of galcanezumab, or its ability to bind to the target ligand. Conclusion The results from this 3-month Phase 2b study support the initiation of larger Phase 3 trials of longer duration.

Effect of Different Doses of Galcanezumab vs Placebo for Episodic Migraine Prevention: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Galcanezumab (LY2951742), a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is one of a novel class of new medicines for migraine prevention. Objective: To assess whether at least 1 dose of galcanezumab was superior to placebo for episodic migraine prevention. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in the United States (July 7, 2014, to August 19, 2015) in clinics of 37 licensed physicians with a specialty including, but not limited to, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, and primary care. Subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, 5, 50, 120, or 300 mg, or placebo were given monthly during the 3-month treatment period. A total of 936 patients were assessed; 526 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria and 410 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or galcanezumab. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study drug. Interventions: Short-term migraine treatments were allowed as needed except for opioids or barbiturates. Main Outcomes and Measures: To determine if at least 1 of the 4 doses of galcanezumab tested was superior to placebo for migraine prevention measured by the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days 9 weeks to 12 weeks after randomization. Results: Of the 936 patients assessed, 410 met entry criteria (aged 18-65 years with 4-14 migraine headache days per month and migraine onset prior to age 50 years) and were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab. For the primary end point, galcanezumab, 120 mg, significantly reduced migraine headache days compared with placebo (99.6% posterior probability -4.8 days; 90% BCI, -5.4 to -4.2 days vs 95% superiority threshold [Bayesian analysis] -3.7 days; 90% BCI, -4.1 to -3.2 days). Adverse events reported by 5% or more of patients in at least 1 galcanezumab dose group and more frequently than placebo included injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, dysmenorrhea, and nausea. Conclusions and Relevance: Monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, both 120 mg and 300 mg, demonstrated efficacy (repeated-measures analysis) for the preventive treatment of migraine and support further development in larger phase 3 studies. All dosages were safe and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163993.

Monoclonal antibodies for chronic pain: a practical review of mechanisms and clinical applications.

Context: Monoclonal antibodies are being investigated for chronic pain to overcome the shortcomings of current treatment options. Objective: To provide a practical overview of monoclonal antibodies in clinical development for use in chronic pain conditions, with a focus on mechanisms of action and relevance to specific classes. Methods: Qualitative review using a systematic strategy to search for randomized controlled trials, systematic and nonsystematic (narrative) reviews, observational studies, nonclinical studies, and case reports for inclusion. Studies were identified via relevant search terms using an electronic search of MEDLINE via PubMed (1990 to June 2017) in addition to hand-searching reference lists of retrieved systematic and nonsystematic reviews. Results: Monoclonal antibodies targeting nerve growth factor, calcitonin gene-related peptide pathways, various ion channels, tumor necrosis factor-α, and epidermal growth factor receptor are in different stages of development. Mechanisms of action are dependent on specific signaling pathways, which commonly involve those related to peripheral neurogenic inflammation. In clinical studies, there has been a mixed response to different monoclonal antibodies in several chronic pain conditions, including migraine, neuropathic pain conditions (e.g., diabetic peripheral neuropathy), osteoarthritis, chronic back pain, ankylosing spondylitis, and cancer. Adverse events observed to date have generally been mild, although further studies are needed to ensure safety of monoclonal antibodies in early stages of development, especially where there is an overlap with non-pain-related pathways. High acquisition cost remains another treatment limitation. Conclusion: Monoclonal antibodies for chronic pain have the potential to overcome the limitations of current treatment options, but strategies to ensure their appropriate use need to be determined.

Observational study of upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding events in patients taking duloxetine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: a case-control analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the concomitant use of duloxetine with prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or aspirin was associated with an increased risk for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) bleeding compared with taking these analgesics alone. METHODS: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases were examined for hospital admissions of adult patients indexed from January 1, 2007-December 31, 2011. Cases were patients with UGI hemorrhage or peptic ulcer disease. Controls were randomly selected from the remaining admissions to match 10:1 with cases based on age, sex, and admission date. Prescription medication exposure groups of interest were: 1) no exposure to duloxetine, NSAIDs or aspirin; 2) duloxetine only; 3) NSAIDs or aspirin only; 4) duloxetine plus NSAIDs or aspirin. Logistic regression and relative excess risk due to interaction was utilized to estimate any increased risk of UGI bleeding for patients prescribed these medications across these groups. RESULTS: There were 33,571 cases and 335,710 controls identified. Comparing exposure group 2 and group 4, the adjusted odds ratio was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94, 1.12), and the adjusted relative excess risk due to interaction was 0.352 (95% CI: -0.18, 0.72) for risk of UGI bleeding, neither of which support an increased risk or an interaction between duloxetine and prescription NSAID or aspirin for these events. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of an increased risk for UGI bleeding when duloxetine was taken with prescription NSAIDs or aspirin. In addition, there was no evidence of an interaction between duloxetine and prescription NSAIDs or aspirin for an increased risk of these events.

Neuropathic pain phenotyping as a predictor of treatment response in painful diabetic neuropathy: data from the randomized, double-blind, COMBO-DN study.

Sensory profiles are heterogeneous in neuropathic pain disorders, and subgroups of patients respond differently to treatment. To further explore this, patients in the COMBO-DN study were prospectively assessed by the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI) at baseline, after initial 8-week therapy with either duloxetine or pregabalin, and after subsequent 8-week combination/high-dose therapy. Exploratory post hoc cluster analyses were performed to identify and characterize potential subgroups through their scores in the NPSI items. In patients not responding to initial 60 mg/d duloxetine, adding 300 mg/d pregabalin for combination treatment was particularly effective regarding the dimensions pressing pain and evoked pain, whereas maximizing the duloxetine dose to 120 mg/d appeared more beneficial regarding paresthesia/dysesthesia. In contrast, adding 60 mg/d duloxetine to 300 mg/d pregabalin in case of nonresponse to initial pregabalin led to numerically higher decreases in all NPSI dimensions/items compared to maximizing the pregabalin dose to 600 mg/d. Cluster analysis revealed 3 patient clusters (defined by baseline scores for the 10 NPSI sensory items) with different pain profiles, not only in terms of overall pain severity, but also across NPSI items. Mean Brief Pain Inventory average pain improved in all clusters during combination/high-dose therapy. However, in patients with severe pain, the treatment effect showed a trend in favor of high-dose monotherapy, whereas combination therapy appeared to be more beneficial in patients with moderate and mild pain (not significant). These complementary exploratory analyses further endorse the idea that sensory phenotyping might lead to a more stratified treatment and potentially to personalized pain therapy.

Duloxetine and pregabalin: high-dose monotherapy or their combination? The "COMBO-DN study"--a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group study in diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain addressed whether, in patients not responding to standard doses of duloxetine or pregabalin, combining both medications is superior to increasing each drug to its maximum recommended dose. For initial 8-week therapy, either 60 mg/day duloxetine (groups 1, 2) or 300 mg/day pregabalin (groups 3, 4) was given. Thereafter, in the 8-week combination/high-dose therapy period, only nonresponders received 120 mg/day duloxetine (group 1), a combination of 60 mg/day duloxetine and 300 mg/day pregabalin (groups 2, 3), or 600 mg/day pregabalin (group 4). Primary outcome (Brief Pain Inventory Modified Short Form [BPI-MSF] 24-hour average pain change after combination/high-dose therapy) was analyzed comparing combination (groups 2, 3 pooled) with high-dose monotherapy (groups 1, 4 pooled). Secondary end points included response rates, BPI-MSF severity items, and comparison of duloxetine and pregabalin in BPI-MSF average pain. Eight hundred four patients were evaluated for initial therapy and 339 for combination/high-dose therapy. There were no significant differences between combination and high-dose monotherapy regarding BPI-MSF average pain (mean change: combination: -2.35; high-dose monotherapy: -2.16; P = 0.370) and most secondary end points, which, however, consistently favoured combination therapy. Fifty-percent response rates were 52.1% for combination and 39.3% for high-dose monotherapy (P = 0.068). In exploratory analyses of the initial 8-week therapy uncorrected for multiple comparisons, 60 mg/day duloxetine was found superior to 300 mg/day pregabalin (P < 0.001). Both drugs and their combination were well tolerated. Although not significantly superior to high-dose monotherapy, combination therapy was considered to be effective, safe, and well tolerated.