Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and acute medication overuse: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse. BACKGROUND: Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies. METHODS: This 52-week open-label extension study followed a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline. RESULTS: Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was -9.3 (95% confidence interval: -10.4, -8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -9.3 (-10.1, -8.5 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine-specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine-specific medication days at Week 52 was -7.4 (-8.3, -6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -5.4 (-6.1, -4.7 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non-overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: Long-term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the tolerability and efficacy of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, to topiramate for migraine prophylaxis in adults. METHODS: HER-MES was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial conducted in 82 sites in Germany. Patients with ≥4 migraine days per month and naïve to study drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus topiramate placebo (erenumab group) or oral topiramate at the individual dose with optimal efficacy (50-100 mg/day) plus erenumab placebo (topiramate group).The primary endpoint was medication discontinuation due to an adverse event during the double-blind phase. The proportion of patients that achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days during the last 3 months of the double-blind phase was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomised (from 22 February 2019 to 29 July, 2020) and 95.1% completed the study. In the erenumab group, 10.6% discontinued medication due to adverse events compared to 38.9% in the topiramate group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.27; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline with erenumab (55.4% vs. 31.2%; odds ratio 2.76; 95% confidence interval 2.06-3.71; p < 0.001). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab demonstrated a favourable tolerability and efficacy profile compared to topiramate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03828539.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine in whom prior preventive treatments had failed: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in the subgroup of patients with chronic migraine (CM) in whom prior preventive treatments had failed (TF) (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) and never failed (preventive naïve or prior preventive treatments had not failed), using the data from a 52-week, open-label treatment period (OLTP) of the parent study. BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to and inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. There are limited long-term data evaluating the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed. METHODS: Patients who had completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP) in the parent study were eligible to participate in the 52-week OLTP, during which they received erenumab every 4 weeks. The TF subgroups (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) were not mutually exclusive; patients in whom prior preventive treatments from ≥3 medication categories had failed were also counted in the ≥2 and ≥1 medication categories. Endpoints included monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD), achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction from baseline in MMD, and exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs; per 100 patient-years). RESULTS: Erenumab treatment provided sustained mean reductions in MMD and MSMD relative to the parent study baseline throughout the 52 weeks of the OLTP across all TF subgroups. At Week 52, the mean MMD change was -8.6 (SD 6.6) (baseline: 18.4 [SD 4.5] days) in the ≥1 TF subgroup. A post hoc completer analysis (52 weeks [OLTP] erenumab) showed that compared with erenumab 70 mg, the 140 mg dose was associated with numerically greater reductions in the mean MMD (Week 40: -8.6 and -7.2 days; Week 52: -9.7 and -7.9 days [≥1 TF subgroup]) and a higher proportion of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response thresholds across all subgroups at Weeks 40 and 52. Overall the exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of AEs did not increase during the OLTP versus the DBTP (≥1 TF subgroup: 141.9/100 versus 317.9/100 patient-years), and no new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION: The long-term treatment with erenumab was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed, with numerically greater treatment effects for 140 mg versus 70 mg.

Safety and tolerability of erenumab in individuals with episodic or chronic migraine across age groups: a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. There exists an unmet need to establish the safety of erenumab in older individuals, in view of existing multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, and age-related physiological changes. This pooled analysis of five large migraine-prevention studies examined the safety of erenumab stratified across age groups, particularly in older populations. METHODS: Pooled and age-stratified analysis of safety data from the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of five randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 and 3 studies of erenumab in participants with episodic or chronic migraine across the age groups < 40 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, and ≥ 60 years was completed. The safety of erenumab across age groups was determined by assessing safety endpoints including treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and events leading to study drug discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 3345 participants across five studies were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 1359), erenumab 70 mg (n = 1132) or erenumab 140 mg (n = 854); 3176 (94.9%) completed the DBTP, and 169 (5.1%) discontinued, mainly due to participant decision (110; 3.3%). Overall, 1349 (40.6%), 1122 (33.8%), and 850 (25.6%) participants received at least one dose of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar across all age groups for both doses of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) and placebo (< 40 years, 44.0% vs 44.4%; 40-49 years, 42.5% vs 49.2%; 50-59 years, 46.5% vs 41.6%; ≥ 60 years, 43.8% vs 59.4%). Incidence of treatment-emergent serious AEs overall, and stratified by age groups for both doses and placebo was low (< 40 years, 0.9% vs 1.2%; 40-49 years, 1.7% vs 1.9%; and 50-59 years, 1.6% vs 1.1%), with no serious AEs reported in participants aged ≥ 60 years. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) exhibited a similar safety profile compared with placebo across age groups in individuals with episodic or chronic migraine, with no increased emergence of events due to age. Erenumab was well tolerated in older participants with multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, and age-related physiological changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02066415, NCT02456740, NCT02483585, NCT03096834, NCT03333109.

Miniaturization, Parallelization, and Automation of Endotoxin Detection by Centrifugal Microfluidics.

We demonstrate microfluidic automation and parallelization of Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL)-based bacterial endotoxin testing using centrifugal microfluidics. LAL is the standard reagent to test for endotoxin contaminations in injectable pharmaceuticals. The main features of the introduced system are more than 90% reduction of LAL consumption, from 100 µL/reaction to 9.6 µL/reaction, automated liquid handling to reduce opportunities for contamination and manual handling errors, and microfluidic parallelization by integrating 104 reactions into a single centrifugal microplate. In a single Eclipse microplate, 21 samples and their positive product controls are tested in duplicate. In addition, a standard curve with up to five points is generated, resulting in a total of 104 reactions. Test samples with a defined concentration of 0.5 endotoxin units per milliliter were tested, resulting in a coefficient of variation below 0.75%. A key feature for achieving a small coefficient of variation is ensuring the same path length along the microfluidic channels to the final reaction chambers for each sample and the reagent, so that any unspecific adsorption to the polymer surfaces does not affect the accuracy and precision. Analysis of a sample containing naturally occurring endotoxin with the developed microfluidic microplate yielded comparable results to the conventional testing method. A test with eight commercially available pharmaceuticals was found to pass all requirements for bacterial endotoxin testing as specified in the United States Pharmacopeia. The automated endotoxin testing system reveals specific advantages of centrifugal microfluidics for analytical biochemistry applications. Small liquid volumes are handled (metered, mixed, and aliquoted) in a very precise, highly integrated, and highly parallel manner within mass-fabricated microplates.

Effect of erenumab on functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful: results from the LIBERTY study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of erenumab on patient-reported, functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine (EM) in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful from the Phase 3b LIBERTY study. METHODS: As previously reported, 246 patients with EM with 2-4 prior failed preventives were randomised 1:1 to subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. This analysis evaluated Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scores at Week 12. P values were nominal without multiplicity adjustment. RESULTS: Erenumab significantly improved MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores versus placebo (treatment difference (TD) (95% CI) MPFID-PI: -3.5 (-5.7 to -1.2) (p=0.003); MPFID-EA: -3.9 (-6.1 to -1.7)) (p<0.001) at 12 weeks. Patients on erenumab were more likely to have a ≥5-point reduction in MPFID score (OR vs placebo (95% CI) MPFID-EA: 2.1 (1.2 to 3.6); MPFID-PI: 2.5 (1.4 to 4.5)). A similar trend was observed for HIT-6 (TD: -3.0; p<0.001); significantly higher proportions of patients on erenumab reported a ≥5-point reduction (OR (95% CI): 2.4 (1.4 to 4.1)). In three out of four WPAI domains, erenumab showed improvement versus placebo. CONCLUSION: At 12 weeks, erenumab was efficacious on functional outcomes in patients with EM in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03096834.

A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of AMG 301, a pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody for migraine prevention.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of AMG 301, an inhibitor of the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP)-1 (PAC1) receptor, for prevention of migraine. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, patients were randomized 4:3:3 to placebo, AMG 301 210 mg every 4 weeks, or AMG 301 420 mg every 2 weeks for 12 weeks. Effect on monthly migraine days and other secondary measures were assessed over weeks 9-12. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Of 343 randomized patients (mean age, 41.8-42.5 years), the majority were women (85.4-90.4%), white (94.1-96.2%), and had episodic migraine (62.5-67.9%). A total of 305 patients completed treatment (placebo, n = 124; AMG 301 210 mg, n = 94; AMG 301 420 mg, n = 87). Least squares mean reduction at week 12 in monthly migraine days from baseline was -2.5 (0.4) days for placebo and -2.2 (0.5) days for both AMG 301 treatment groups. No difference between AMG 301 and placebo on any measure of efficacy was observed; mean (95% confidence interval) treatment difference versus placebo for monthly migraine days for AMG 301 210 mg, 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.4); AMG 301 420 mg, 0.3 (-0.9 to 1.4). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: AMG 301 offered no benefit over placebo for migraine prevention; further studies may be necessary to fully understand the role of PACAP isoforms and its receptors in migraine pathophysiology. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03238781.

Efficacy of erenumab in chronic migraine patients with and without ictal allodynia.

BACKGROUND: Ictal cutaneous allodynia, common in chronic migraine, is associated with reduced responses to acute treatment with triptans. Allodynia's impact on the efficacy of newer preventive treatments such as erenumab is unknown. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 12-week study of erenumab in chronic migraine, contrasting those with no allodynia with those with moderate-severe allodynia assessed with the Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12, was undertaken. RESULTS: Of 648 randomized individuals with baseline Allodynia Symptom Checklist-12 scores, 386 (59.6%) had no allodynia and 153 (23.6%) had moderate-to-severe allodynia. Mean (standard deviation) baseline monthly migraine days were 17.6 (4.8) and 18.9 (4.3), respectively. Compared to placebo, the erenumab group had greater reductions in monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days in both no allodynia and allodynia subgroups. Mean (95% confidence interval) treatment differences in change from baseline for monthly migraine days at week 12 were -2.5 (-3.7, -1.4) in the no allodynia subgroup and -3.3 (-5.3, -1.3) in the moderate-severe allodynia subgroup. Change in acute migraine-specific medication days were -3.3 (-4.3, -2.3) and -2.5 (-4.3, -0.8), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab's efficacy in reducing monthly migraine days and acute migraine-specific medication days in chronic migraine was not impacted by the presence of moderate-severe ictal allodynia.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02066415.

Timing and durability of response to erenumab in patients with episodic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate temporal response patterns to erenumab treatment in patients with episodic migraine. BACKGROUND: Although many patients treated with erenumab experience onset of efficacy as early as 1 week, clinical benefits of migraine preventive therapies may accrue with continued treatment. Furthermore, details about the maintenance of clinical responses have not been reported. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine. We analyzed temporal responses to erenumab using a threshold of ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs). RESULTS: During the 6-month treatment period, 73.7% (230/312) and 79.6% (253/318) of patients in the erenumab 70 mg (n = 312) and 140 mg (n = 318) groups, respectively, achieved a response in at least 1 month. In this group of responders, at least half reached first monthly response (first month with ≥50% reduction from baseline in MMDs) by month 2 and at least 75% of them by month 3. The remainder responded in months 4-6. Of patients in the erenumab 70 and 140 mg groups, 35.3% (110/312) and 41.8% (133/318), respectively, responded over months 1-3 (mean response over first 3 months). Of these patients, 81.8% (90/110) and 81.9% (109/133) maintained this response over months 4-6 (mean response over last 3 months) in the 70 and 140 mg groups, respectively. Many patients who did not achieve an initial response (≥50% reduction from baseline in MMDs during month 1) responded later with continued treatment, with approximately one-half or more of initial nonresponders responding by months 4-6. CONCLUSIONS: These results support guidelines recommending at least 3 months following the initiation of erenumab for migraine prevention before the assessment of response.

Timing and durability of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody approved for migraine prevention. We sought to further assess the temporal patterns of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM), specifically the onset and sustainability of monthly migraine day (MMD) response. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of erenumab for migraine prevention in patients with CM (≥15 headache days/month, including ≥8 migraine days/month). Onset and sustainability were assessed according to MMD reduction from baseline, with the following response categories: responders (≥50% reduction), partial responders (≥30% and <50%), or nonresponders (<30%). RESULTS: Among the erenumab 140 mg group (n = 187), 54.0% (101/187) achieved a response at any month during the study with a median time to onset of monthly response of 1 month. This improvement was maintained in most patients with continued treatment. An initial response was achieved at Month 1 by 28.3% (53/187) of patients; 69.8% (37/53) of whom maintained a response at Months 2 and 3. Although many patients responded early, some patients required longer treatment to achieve a response; 79.4% (27/34) of initial partial responders and 21.0% (21/100) of initial nonresponders subsequently achieved a response. Similar findings were observed for the erenumab 70mg group (n = 188). CONCLUSION: A majority of erenumab-treated patients with CM who achieved an initial response at Month 1 sustained this benefit. Many patients responded later with continued treatment. Our data support recommendations to assess outcomes after ≥3 months of preventive treatment with erenumab in CM.

Reduction in acute migraine-specific and non-specific medication use in patients treated with erenumab: post-hoc analyses of episodic and chronic migraine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM. CONCLUSIONS: In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

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.

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).

Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine in whom two-to-four previous preventive treatments were unsuccessful: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with migraine does not respond to, or cannot tolerate, oral preventive treatments. Erenumab is a novel CGRP-receptor antibody with preventive efficacy in migraine. We assessed its efficacy and tolerability in patients with episodic migraine in whom previous treatment with two-to-four migraine preventives had been unsuccessful. METHODS: LIBERTY was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised study at 59 sites in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years and had a history of episodic migraine with or without aura for at least 12 months, had migraine for an average of 4-14 days per month during the 3 months before screening, and had been treated unsuccessfully (in terms of either efficacy or tolerability, or both) with between two and four preventive treatments. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either erenumab 140 mg (via two 70 mg injections) or placebo every 4 weeks subcutaneously for 12 weeks. Randomisation was by interactive response technology and was stratified by monthly frequency of migraine headache (4-7 vs 8-14 migraine days per month) during the baseline phase. Cenduit generated the randomisation list and assigned participants to groups. Participants, investigators, people doing various assessments, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% or greater reduction in the mean number of monthly migraine days during weeks 9-12. Efficacy was measured in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who started their assigned treatment and completed at least one post-baseline monthly migraine day measurement. Safety and tolerability were assessed by recording adverse events and by physical examination, assessment of vital signs, clinical laboratory assessments, and electrocardiography. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03096834. The trial is closed to new participants, but the open-label extension phase is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Oct 27, 2017, 246 participants were randomly assigned, 121 to the erenumab group and 125 to the placebo group. 95 of 246 (39%) participants had previously unsuccessfully tried two preventive drugs, 93 (38%) had tried three, and 56 (23%) had tried four. At week 12, 36 (30%) patients in the erenumab had a 50% or greater reduction from baseline in the mean number of monthly migraine days, compared with 17 (14%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·7 [95% CI 1·4-5·2]; p=0·002). The tolerability and safety profiles of erenumab and placebo were similar. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was injection site pain, which occurred in seven (6%) participants in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Compared with placebo, erenumab was efficacious in patients with episodic migraine who previously did not respond to or tolerate between two and four previous migraine preventive treatments. Erenumab might be an option for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine who have high unmet needs and few treatment options. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

Benefit-risk assessment of erenumab and current migraine prophylactic treatments using the likelihood of being helped or harmed.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the benefit-risk profile of erenumab relative to other therapies approved for migraine prophylaxis and available in the majority of European countries. METHODS: Trials were identified via a published systematic literature review updated to December 2017 using MEDLINE. Erenumab's pivotal trials study reports were also included (NCT02066415, NCT02456740). From these sources, ≥ 50% responder rates and discontinuations due to adverse events were extracted to generate numbers needed to treat and harm and likelihood of being helped or harmed, a quantitative benefit-risk measure. RESULTS: Eleven articles (nine randomized clinical trials) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Low numbers needed to treat (range: 4-13) were observed for most treatments, while numbers needed to harm showed substantial differences (erenumab's higher numbers needed to harm indicating better tolerability). In chronic and episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed for erenumab 70 mg were 143 and 167, and 42 and 167 for erenumab 140 mg. Likelihoods of being helped or harmed in chronic migraine were 2 and 3 for topiramate (two studies) and 4 for onabotulinumtoxinA. In episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed were 2 for topiramate and 2 for propranolol. CONCLUSIONS: While all prophylactic treatments were more likely to help than harm (likelihood of being helped or harmed > 1), erenumab showed a likelihood of being helped or harmed of high magnitude, supporting its favorable benefit-risk profile across the entire migraine frequency spectrum, in contrast with other prophylactic treatments.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in episodic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab was effective and well tolerated in a pivotal clinical trial of episodic migraine that included subjects both naïve to, and those who had failed, previous preventives. Here we evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) versus placebo in the subgroup of patients who had previously failed preventive treatment(s): ≥1 or ≥2 prior failed migraine preventive categories, and in patients who had never failed. METHODS: Prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated change from baseline to months 4-6 (the primary endpoint of the blinded study phase) in monthly migraine days, achievement of ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days, and change from baseline in acute migraine-specific medication days. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Treatment with both doses of erenumab resulted in greater reductions in monthly migraine days at months 4-6 (treatment difference versus placebo [95% CI], never failed subgroup: -0.9 [-1.5, -0.3] for 70 mg and -1.3 [-1.9, -0.7] for 140 mg; ≥1 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.0 [-2.8, -1.2] for 70 mg and -2.5 [-3.4, -1.7] for 140 mg; ≥2 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -1.3 [-2.6, 0.0] for 70 mg and -2.7 [-4.0, -1.4] for 140 mg). Similar results were observed in the monthly acute migraine-specific medication days endpoint, and in the achievement of ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days. For the ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine day endpoint, placebo response in the no prior treatment failed group was 32.6%, in the ≥1 failed treatment 17.5%, and in the ≥2 failed treatments 11.1%. CONCLUSION: Erenumab showed consistent efficacy in episodic migraine patients who had failed prior preventive treatments and was well tolerated across subgroups. The data suggest prior patients with prior treatment failures have lower placebo response rates.

Long-term safety and tolerability of erenumab: Three-plus year results from a five-year open-label extension study in episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Previously published three-month placebo-controlled and one-year open-label clinical trial data have provided information on the efficacy and safety of erenumab. METHODS: Interim analysis was undertaken from an ongoing five-year open-label treatment phase after all patients completed three years in the open-label treatment phase or discontinued the study. Adult patients with episodic migraine enrolled in the open-label treatment phase initially received 70 mg erenumab monthly. A protocol amendment increased the dosage to 140 mg monthly to assess long-term safety of the higher dose. Safety and tolerability were assessed by monitoring adverse events, electrocardiograms, laboratory assessments, and vital signs. RESULTS: Of 383 patients enrolled in the open-label treatment phase, at data cutoff 235 (61.3%) remained in the study, all received 140 mg for ≥1 year. Median (Q1, Q3) exposure (70 or 140 mg) for all patients enrolled was 3.2 (1.3, 3.4) years. The most frequent adverse events (≥4.0/100 patient-years) were reported as viral upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, influenza, and back pain. Exposure-adjusted serious adverse event rates were 4.2/100 patient-years. There was no increase in cardiovascular events over time. CONCLUSIONS: In this long-term study of a CGRP-receptor antibody, erenumab was found to be safe and well-tolerated with a spectrum and rate of adverse events consistent with shorter-term placebo-controlled studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952574.

Long-term tolerability and nonvascular safety of erenumab, a novel calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for prevention of migraine: A pooled analysis of four placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of erenumab have been evaluated in a comprehensive clinical development program resulting in approval for migraine prevention in over 40 countries to date. METHODS: This integrated safety analysis included four double-blind randomized trials and their extensions (up to three-plus years). Safety endpoints included exposure-adjusted patient incidences of adverse events, serious adverse events, and anti-erenumab antibodies. RESULTS: In all, 2375 of the patients randomized across the four studies received at least one dose of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg), with cumulative exposure of 2641.2 patient-years. Exposure-adjusted adverse event rates during the double-blind treatment phase were similar to placebo, with the exception of injection-site reactions (17.1 vs. 10.8 per 100 patient-years), constipation (7.0 vs. 3.8 per 100 patient-years), and muscle spasm (2.3 vs. 1.2 per 100 patient-years). During the long-term extensions, adverse events reported were similar to those observed during the double-blind treatment phase, and rates of injection site reactions, constipation, and muscle spasm were reported at lower rates than in the double-blind treatment phase. There were two deaths reported, both confounded by pre-existing conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled safety analysis revealed a favorable and stable adverse event profile over time for erenumab with more than three years of exposure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01952574, NCT02483585, NCT02456740, NCT02066415, and NCT02174861.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab (AMG334) in chronic migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure: A subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Background Erenumab was effective and well tolerated in a pivotal clinical trial of chronic migraine. Here, we evaluated efficacy and safety of monthly erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) versus placebo in the subgroup of patients who had previously failed preventive treatment(s) (≥ 1, ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories) and in patients who had never failed. Methods Subgroup analyses evaluated change from baseline in monthly migraine days; achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days; and change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Adverse events were evaluated for each subgroup. Results Treatment with both doses of erenumab resulted in greater reductions in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) at Month 3 (treatment difference [95% CI], never failed subgroup: -2.2 [-4.1, -0.3] for 70 mg and -0.5 [-2.4, 1.5] for 140 mg; ≥ 1 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.5 [-3.8, -1.2], for 70 mg and -3.3 [-4.6, -2.1] for 140 mg; ≥ 2 prior failed medication categories subgroup: -2.7 [-4.2, -1.2], for 70 mg and -4.3 [-5.8, -2.8] for 140 mg). Similar results were observed in the monthly acute migraine-specific medication days endpoint, and in the achievement of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% reduction in monthly migraine days. There were no new or unexpected safety issues. Conclusion Erenumab showed consistent efficacy in chronic migraine patients who had failed prior preventive treatments and was well tolerated across subgroups.

Early onset of efficacy with erenumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction at all monthly assessment points tested in 2 pivotal trials in episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Early efficacy of migraine preventive medications is an important treatment characteristic to patients. Delays in achievement of efficacy can result in failed adherence. The objective of these post-hoc analyses were to evaluate efficacy in the first 4 weeks after initial subcutaneous administration of erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo. METHODS: There is no generally accepted methodology to measure onset of action for migraine preventive medications. We used a comprehensive approach with data from both studies to evaluate change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD), achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD, and proportion of patients experiencing migraine measured on a daily basis. The 7-day moving averages were overlaid with observed data. RESULTS: In both studies (EM: N = 955; CM: N = 667), there was evidence of onset of efficacy of erenumab vs. placebo during the first week of treatment, which in some cases reached nominal significance. For EM the changes in WMD were (least squares mean [LSM] [95% CI]): placebo, - 0.1 (- 0.3, 0.0); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.3 (- 0.5, - 0.2) p = 0.130; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.6 (- 0.7, - 0.4) p < 0.001. For CM the changes were: placebo, - 0.5 (- 0.8, - 0.3); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.9 (- 1.2, - 0.7) p = 0.047; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.8 (- 1.1, - 0.5) p = 0.18. Achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD was observed as early as Week 1 (adjusted OR [95% CI] erenumab vs placebo) in EM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.3 (1.0, 1.9) p = 0.097; erenumab 140 mg, 2.0 (1.4, 2.7) p < 0.001. A similar outcome was observed for CM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8) p = 0.011; erenumab 140 mg, 1.9 (1.2, 2.9) p = 0.009. Seven-day moving averages of observed data showed each treatment arm differed from placebo by Week 1 (OR [95% CI]): in EM Day 3 for erenumab 140 mg, 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) p = 0.031 and at Day 7 for 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) p = 0.002; in CM: Day 6 for erenumab 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) p = 0.022 and at Day 7 for 140 mg, 0.7 (0.4, 1.0); p = 0.038. CONCLUSION: Erenumab showed early onset of efficacy with separation from placebo within the first week of treatment in both chronic and episodic migraine patients.