Efficacy and safety of erenumab in Japanese migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure or concomitant preventive treatment: subgroup analyses of a phase 3, randomized trial

BackgroundThese subgroup analyses of a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab 70 mg in Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) (“failed-yes” and “failed-no” subgroups) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment (“concomitant preventive-yes” and “concomitant preventive-no” subgroups).MethodsOverall, 261 patients were randomized; 130 and 131 patients to erenumab 70 mg and placebo, respectively. Subgroup analyses evaluated the change from baseline to Months 4–6 in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) (primary endpoint), achievement of a ≥50% reduction in mean MMD, and change from baseline in mean monthly acute migraine-specific medication (MSM) treatment days. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also evaluated.ResultsOf the 261 patients randomized, 117 (44.8%) and 92 (35.3%) patients were in the failed-yes and concomitant preventive-yes subgroups, respectively. Erenumab 70 mg demonstrated consistent efficacy across all subgroups, with greater reductions from baseline in mean MMD versus placebo at Months 4–6 (treatment difference versus placebo [95% CI], failed-yes: − 1.9 [− 3.3, − 0.4]; failed-no: − 1.4 [− 2.6, − 0.3]; concomitant preventive-yes: − 1.7 [− 3.3, 0.0]; concomitant preventive-no: − 1.6 [− 2.6, − 0.5]). Similar results were seen for achievement of ≥50% reduction in mean MMD and change from baseline in mean monthly acute MSM treatment days. The safety profile of erenumab 70 mg was similar across subgroups, and similar to placebo in each subgroup.ConclusionErenumab was associated with clinically relevant improvements in all efficacy endpoints and was well tolerated across all subgroups of Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03812224","term_id":"NCT03812224"}}NCT03812224. Registered January 23, 2019.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01313-8.     

Impact of age and sex on the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine: results of the randomized,placebo-controlled,phase 3b FOCUS study

BackgroundMigraine prevalence is age and sex dependent, predominating in women in early and middle adulthood; however, migraine also represents a substantial burden for men and adults of all ages. Thus, understanding this burden and the efficacy of migraine preventive medications in both sexes and across age groups is critical. The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3b FOCUS study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2∆a) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide as a migraine preventive treatment for individuals with migraine and prior inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Here, we assessed the efficacy of fremanezumab in participants from FOCUS subgrouped by age (18–45 years and > 45 years) and sex.MethodsIn the FOCUS study, eligible participants were randomized (1:1:1) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint of FOCUS) and other secondary and exploratory efficacy outcomes in prespecified age (18–45 and > 45 years) and sex subgroups.ResultsThe modified intention-to-treat population (received ≥ 1 dose of study drug and had ≥ 10 days of postbaseline efficacy assessments for the primary endpoint) totaled 837 participants (18–45 years, n = 373; > 45 years, n = 464; male, n = 138; female, n = 699). Consistent reductions in monthly average number of migraine days during 12 weeks were observed, regardless of age (18–45 years: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.1 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.7 days; placebo, − 0.9 days; P < 0.001; > 45 years: quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.6 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.7 days; placebo, − 0.3 days; P < 0.001) and sex (male: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.1 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.6 days; placebo, − 0.3 days; P < 0.001; female: quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.6 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.9 days; placebo, − 0.6 days; P < 0.001). Fremanezumab also reduced monthly headache days of at least moderate severity, monthly days of acute medication use, and improved Migraine Disability Assessment scores across subgroups.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine for reducing migraine and headache days, acute medication use, and disability, regardless of age or sex.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03308968","term_id":"NCT03308968"}}NCT03308968 (FOCUS), registered October 13, 2017.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01336-1.     

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine with documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 classes of migraine preventive medications over 6 months of treatment in the phase 3b FOCUS study

BackgroundFremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) selectively targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide and has proven efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine. In this study, we evaluated the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of monthly and quarterly fremanezumab.MethodsEpisodic migraine and chronic migraine patients completing the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS trial entered the 12-week open-label extension and received 3 monthly doses of fremanezumab (225 mg). Changes from baseline in monthly migraine days, monthly headache days of at least moderate severity, days of acute headache medication use, days with photophobia/phonophobia, days with nausea or vomiting, disability scores, and proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% or  ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days were evaluated.ResultsOf the 807 patients who completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period and entered the open-label extension, 772 patients completed the study. In the placebo, quarterly fremanezumab, and monthly fremanezumab dosing regimens, respectively, patients had fewer average monthly migraine days (mean [standard deviation] change from baseline: − 4.7 [5.4]; − 5.1 [4.7]; − 5.5 [5.0]), monthly headache days of at least moderate severity (− 4.5 [5.0]; − 4.8 [4.5]; − 5.2 [4.9]), days per month of acute headache medication use (− 4.3 [5.2]; − 4.9 [4.6]; − 4.8 [4.9]), days with photophobia/phonophobia (− 3.1 [5.3]; − 3.4 [5.3]; − 4.0 [5.2]), and days with nausea or vomiting (− 2.3 [4.6]; − 3.1 [4.5]; − 3.0 [4.4]). During the 12-week open-label extension, 38%, 45%, and 46% of patients, respectively, achieved a ≥50% reduction and 16%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, achieved a ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days. Disability scores were substantially improved in all 3 treatment groups. There were low rates of adverse events leading to discontinuation (<1%).ConclusionFremanezumab demonstrated sustained efficacy up to 6 months and was well tolerated in patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to multiple migraine preventive medication classes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03308968","term_id":"NCT03308968"}}NCT03308968 (FOCUS).     

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

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionsThis 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.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01411-1.     

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in clinical trial participants aged ≥60 years with episodic or chronic migraine: pooled results from 3 randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled phase 3 studies

BackgroundAlthough migraine is less common in older people, preventive treatment of migraine in these individuals may be more challenging due to the presence of multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy. Additionally, evidence for migraine treatment efficacy, safety, and tolerability is limited in this population. We evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP), in clinical trial participants aged ≥60 years with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).MethodsThis analysis included data from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 studies: the HALO EM study, HALO CM study, and FOCUS study in participants with EM or CM and prior inadequate response to 2–4 migraine preventive medication classes. Participants in all studies were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 12 weeks of subcutaneous treatment with quarterly fremanezumab (Months 1/2/3: EM/CM, 675 mg/placebo/placebo), monthly fremanezumab (Months 1/2/3: EM, 225 mg/225 mg/225 mg; CM, 675 mg/225 mg/225 mg), or matched monthly placebo.ResultsThese pooled analyses included 246 participants aged ≥60 years. Reductions in monthly migraine days from baseline over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab (least-squares mean change from baseline [standard error]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.3 [0.59]; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.6 [0.54]) versus placebo (placebo, − 2.3 [0.57]; both P < 0.01 vs placebo). As early as Week 1, significant reductions from baseline in weekly migraine days were observed with fremanezumab versus placebo (both P < 0.01). With fremanezumab treatment versus placebo, a significantly higher proportion of participants achieved ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days, and significant improvements in disability and quality-of-life outcomes were observed (P < 0.05). Proportions of participants experiencing serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were low and similar in the fremanezumab and placebo groups. Efficacy and safety results were comparable to the overall pooled population (N = 2843).ConclusionsThis pooled subgroup analysis demonstrates that fremanezumab treatment is efficacious and well-tolerated over 12 weeks in participants aged ≥60 years with EM or CM. These data may help healthcare providers with clinical decision making and preventive treatment selection for older patients with migraine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: HALO CM: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02621931","term_id":"NCT02621931"}}NCT02621931; HALO EM: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02629861","term_id":"NCT02629861"}}NCT02629861; FOCUS: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03308968","term_id":"NCT03308968"}}NCT03308968.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01351-2.     

Impact of fremanezumab on disability outcomes in patients with episodic and chronic migraine: a pooled analysis of phase 3 studies

BackgroundMigraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Although many preventive treatments reduce migraine frequency and severity, it is unclear whether these treatments reduce migraine-related disability in a clinically meaningful way. This pooled analysis evaluated the ability of fremanezumab to reduce migraine-related disability, based on responses and shifts in severity in patient-reported disability outcomes.MethodsThis pooled analysis included 3 double-blind phase 3 trials (HALO EM, HALO CM, FOCUS) in which patients with episodic or chronic migraine were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to quarterly or monthly fremanezumab or matched placebo for 12 weeks. Migraine-related disability was assessed using the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaires. A clinically meaningful improvement in disability was defined per American Headache Society guidelines: for HIT-6, a ≥ 5-point reduction; for MIDAS, a ≥ 5-point reduction when baseline score was 11 to 20 or ≥ 30% reduction when baseline score was > 20. Proportions of patients who demonstrated shifts in severity for each outcome were also evaluated.ResultsFor patients with baseline MIDAS scores of 11 to 20 (n = 234), significantly higher proportions achieved 5-point reductions from baseline in MIDAS scores with fremanezumab (quarterly, 71%; monthly, 70%) compared with placebo (49%; both P ≤ 0.01). For patients with baseline MIDAS scores of > 20 (n = 1266), proportions achieving ≥30% reduction from baseline in MIDAS scores were also significantly higher with fremanezumab (quarterly, 69%; monthly, 79%) compared with placebo (58%; both P < 0.001). For HIT-6 scores, proportions of patients achieving 5-point reductions from baseline were significantly higher with fremanezumab (quarterly, 53%; monthly, 55%) compared with placebo (39%; both P < 0.0001). Proportions of patients with shifts of 1 to 3 grades down in MIDAS or HIT-6 disability severity were significantly greater with quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compared with placebo (all P < 0.0001).ConclusionFremanezumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in disability severity in this pooled analysis.Trial registrationsHALO CM, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02621931","term_id":"NCT02621931"}}NCT02621931; HALO EM, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02629861","term_id":"NCT02629861"}}NCT02629861; FOCUS, {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03308968","term_id":"NCT03308968"}}NCT03308968.     

Telmisartan in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

We evaluated telmisartan 80 mg for migraine prophylaxis. Migraine patients ( n  = 95) with three to seven migraine attacks in 3 months were randomized, double-blind to telmisartan or placebo. The primary end-point was the reduction in the number of migraine days (i.e. a day with ≥ 1 h of symptoms) between the 4-week baseline period and the last 4 weeks of the 12-week treatment period. A responder was recorded when there was a symptom reduction of ≥ 50% in these 4-week baseline and treatment periods. The reduction in migraine days was 1.65 with telmisartan and 1.14 with placebo ( P  > 0.05). Post hoc analyses adjusting for baseline and centre showed a 38% reduction in migraine days with telmisartan vs. 15% with placebo ( P  = 0.03), and a borderline significant difference in responders (40% vs. 25%, P  = 0.07). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. This study indicates that telmisartan might be effective in migraine prophylaxis.     

Treatment benefit among migraine patients taking fremanezumab: results from a post hoc responder analysis of two placebo-controlled trials

BackgroundMonoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, including the fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) fremanezumab, have demonstrated safety and efficacy for migraine prevention. Clinical trials include responders and nonresponders; efficacy outcomes describe mean values across both groups and thus provide little insight into the clinical benefit in responders. Clinicians and their patients want to understand the extent of clinical improvement in patients who respond. This post hoc analysis of fremanezumab treatment attempts to answer this question: what is the benefit in subjects who responded to treatment during the two, phase 3 HALO clinical trials?MethodsWe included subjects with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) who received fremanezumab quarterly (675 mg/placebo/placebo) or monthly (EM: 225 mg/225 mg/225 mg; CM: 675 mg/225 mg/225 mg) during the 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HALO EM and HALO CM clinical trials. EM and CM responders were defined as participants with a reduction of ≥ 2 or ≥ 4 monthly migraine days, respectively. Treatment benefits evaluated included reductions in monthly migraine days, acute headache medication use, and headache-related disability, and changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL).ResultsOverall, 857 participants from the HALO trials were identified as responders (EM: 429 [73.8%]; CM: 428 [56.7%]). Reductions in the monthly average number of migraine days were greater among EM (quarterly: 5.4 days; monthly: 5.5 days) and CM (quarterly: 8.7 days; monthly: 9.1 days) responders compared with the overall population. The proportion of participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in the average monthly number of migraine days was also greater in responders (EM: quarterly, 59.8%; monthly, 63.7%; CM: quarterly, 52.8%; monthly, 59.0%) than in the overall population. Greater reductions in the average number of days of acute headache medication use, greater reductions in headache-related disability scores, and larger improvements in HRQoL were observed among EM and CM responders compared with the overall populations.ConclusionsFremanezumab responders achieved clinically meaningful improvements in all outcomes. The magnitude of improvements with fremanezumab across efficacy outcomes was far greater in responders than in the overall trial population, providing insight into expected treatment benefits in participants who respond to fremanezumab in clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02629861","term_id":"NCT02629861"}}NCT02629861 (HALO EM) and {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02621931","term_id":"NCT02621931"}}NCT02621931 (HALO CM).     

Efficacy and safety of topiramate for the treatment of chronic migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of topiramate (100 mg/day) compared with placebo for the treatment of chronic migraine. METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study consisting of 16 weeks of double-blind treatment. Subjects aged 18 to 65 years with 15 or more headache days per month, at least half of which were migraine/migrainous headaches, were randomized 1:1 to either topiramate 100 mg/day or placebo. An initial dose of topiramate 25 mg/day (or placebo) was titrated upward in weekly increments of 25 mg/day to a maximum of 100 mg/day (or to the maximum tolerated dose). Concomitant preventive migraine treatment was not allowed, and acute headache medication use was not to exceed 4 days per week during the double-blind maintenance period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the mean monthly number of migraine/migrainous days; the change in the mean monthly number of migraine days also was analyzed. A fixed sequence approach (ie, gatekeeper approach) using analysis of covariance was used to analyze the efficacy endpoints. Assessments of safety and tolerability included physical and neurologic examinations, clinical laboratory parameters, and spontaneous reports of clinical adverse events. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 306 (topiramate, n = 153; placebo, n = 153) of 328 randomized subjects who provided at least 1 efficacy assessment; 55.8% of the topiramate group and 55.2% on placebo were trial completers. The mean final topiramate maintenance dose was 86.0 mg/day. The mean duration of therapy was 91.7 days for the topiramate group and 90.6 days for the placebo group. Topiramate treatment resulted in a statistically significant mean reduction of migraine/migrainous headache days (topiramate -6.4 vs placebo -4.7, P= .010) and migraine headache days relative to baseline (topiramate -5.6 vs placebo -4.1, P= .032). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 132 (82.5%) and 113 (70.2%) of topiramate-treated and placebo-treated subjects, respectively, and were generally of mild or moderate severity. Most commonly reported adverse events in the topiramate group were paresthesia (n = 46, 28.8%), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 22, 13.8%), and fatigue (n = 19, 11.9%). The most common adverse events in the placebo group were upper respiratory tract infection (n = 20, 12.4%), fatigue (n = 16, 9.9%), and nausea (n = 13, 8.1%). Discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 18 (10.9%) topiramate subjects and 10 (6.1%) placebo subjects. There were no serious adverse events or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Topiramate treatment at daily doses of approximately 100 mg resulted in statistically significant improvements compared with placebo in mean monthly migraine/migrainous and migraine headache days. Topiramate is safe and generally well tolerated in this group of subjects with chronic migraine, a burdensome condition with important unmet treatment needs. Safety and tolerability of topiramate were consistent with experience in previous clinical trials involving the drug.     

Almotriptan is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for migraine pain: results of a randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled clinical trial

Almotriptan is a novel and specific serotonin 5-HT1B/1D agonist for the acute treatment of migraine. This randomized, single-dose, double-blind, multicentre, study assessed the efficacy and safety of oral almotriptan (12.5 mg and 25 mg) in patients with migraine, and compared it with the standard treatment (sumatriptan 100 mg) and placebo. A total of 668 patients treated one migraine attack of moderate or severe intensity with study medication. The primary efficacy assessment was migraine pain relief, improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or no pain, at 2 h after treatment. Response rates, stratified for variation in baseline pain levels, for both almotriptan doses were equivalent to sumatriptan and significantly better than placebo. Other efficacy assessments confirmed the equivalence of the almotriptan groups with the sumatriptan group. Almotriptan 12.5 mg was as well tolerated as placebo (P=0.493) and significantly better tolerated than sumatriptan (P<0.001), in terms of the overall incidence of adverse events. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between almotriptan 25 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg (P=0.376). The results from this large clinical study indicate that the new, specific 5-HT1B/1D agonist, almotriptan, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for migraine pain.     

Efficacy of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis: a single-blinded, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial

Insufficient clinical trial data were available to prove the efficacy of acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis. A multicenter, double-dummy, single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of acupuncture at 5 hospitals in China to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture. A total of 140 patients with migraine without aura were recruited and assigned randomly to 2 different groups: the acupuncture group treated with verum acupuncture plus placebo and the control group treated with sham acupuncture plus flunarizine. Treated by acupuncture 3 times per week and drugs every night, patients from both groups were evaluated at week 0 (baseline), week 4, and week 16. The primary outcome was measured by the proportion of responders (defined as the proportion of patients with a reduction of migraine days by at least 50%). The secondary outcome measures included the number of migraine days, visual analogue scale (VAS, 0 to 10 cm) for pain, as well as the physical and mental component summary scores of the 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). The patients in the acupuncture group had better responder rates and fewer migraine days compared with the control group (P < .05), whereas there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in VAS scores and SF-36 physical and mental component summary scores (P > .05). The results suggested that acupuncture was more effective than flunarizine in decreasing days of migraine attacks, whereas no significantly differences were found between acupuncture and flunarizine in reduction of pain intensity and improvement of the quality of life.     

Efficacy of individualized homeopathic treatment of insomnia: Double-blind,randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BackgroundInsomnia is the most common sleep-related complaint associated with impaired day-time functioning, reduced quality of life, increased morbidity and substantial societal cost. We evaluated whether individualized homeopathy (IH) could produce significant effect beyond placebo in treatment of insomnia.MethodsIn this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two parallel arms trial, 60 patients were randomized to receive either IH/verum or control/placebo (1:1). Patient-administered sleep diary (6 items; 1: latency to fall asleep, 2: minutes awake in middle of night, 3: minutes awake too early, 4: hours spent in bed, 5: total sleep time in hours, and 6: sleep efficiency) and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) were taken as the primary and secondary outcomes respectively, measured at baseline, and after 3 months.ResultsFive patients dropped out (verum: 2, control: 3). Intention to treat sample (n = 60) was analyzed. Trial arms were comparable at baseline. In the verum group, except sleep diary item 3 (P = 0.371), rest of the outcomes improved significantly (all P < 0.01). In the control group, there were significant improvements in diary item 6 and ISI score (P < 0.01) and just significant improvement in item 5 (P = 0.018). Group differences were significant for items 4, 5 and 6 (P < 0.01) and just significant (P = 0.014) for ISI score with moderate to large effect sizes; but non-significant (P > 0.01) for rest of the outcomes.ConclusionIH seemed to produce significantly better effect than placebo. Rigorous trials and independent replications are warranted.     

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine for treatment of fibromyalgia in patients with or without major depressive disorder: Results from a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose trial

The primary objectives of this study were to assess the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for reducing pain severity in fibromyalgia patients with or without current major depressive disorder. This was a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In total, 520 patients meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia were randomly assigned to duloxetine (20 mg/day, 60 mg/day, or 120 mg/day) or placebo, administered once daily, for 6 months (after 3 months, the duloxetine 20-mg/day group titrated to 60 mg/day). The co-primary outcome measures were the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score and Patient Global Impressions of Improvement (PGI-I) score. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events, and changes in vital sign, laboratory, and ECG measures. Compared with placebo-treated patients, those patients treated with duloxetine 120 mg/day improved significantly more on the co-primary outcome measures at 3 months (change in BPI score [-2.31 vs -1.39, P<0.001] and PGI-I [2.89 vs 3.39, P=0.004]) and at 6 months (change in BPI [-2.26 vs -1.43, P=0.003] and PGI-I [2.93 vs 3.37, P=0.012]). Compared with placebo, treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day also significantly improved the co-primary measures at 3 months and BPI at 6 months. Duloxetine was efficacious in patients both with and without major depressive disorder. There were no clinically significant differences between treatment groups in changes in vital signs, laboratory measures, or ECG measures. Study results demonstrated that duloxetine at doses of 60 mg/day and 120 mg/day appears to be safe and efficacious in patients with fibromyalgia.     

Topiramate plus nortriptyline in the preventive treatment of migraine: a controlled study for nonresponders

A sizeable proportion of migraineurs in need of preventive therapy do not significantly benefit from monotherapy. The objective of the study is to conduct a randomized controlled trial testing whether combination therapy of topiramate and nortriptyline is useful in patients who had less than 50% decrease in headache frequency with the use of the single agents. Patients with episodic migraine were enrolled if they had less than 50% reduction in headache frequency after 8 weeks of using topiramate (TPM) (100 mg/day) or nortriptyline (NTP) (30 mg/day). They were randomized (blinded fashion) to have placebo added to their regimen, or to receive the second medication (combination therapy). Primary endpoint was decrease in number of headache days at 6 weeks, relative to baseline, comparing both groups. Secondary endpoint was proportion of patients with at least 50% reduction in headache frequency at 6 weeks relative to baseline. A total of 38 patients were randomized to receive combination therapy, while 30 continued on monotherapy (with placebo) (six drop outs in the combination group and three for each single drug group). For the primary endpoint, mean and standard deviation (SD) of reduction in headache frequency were 4.6 (1.9) for those in polytherapy, relative to 3.5 (2.3) for those in monotherapy. Differences were significant (p < 0.05]. Similarly, 78.3% of patients randomized to receive polytherapy had at least 50% headache reduction, as compared to 37% in monotherapy (p < 0.04). Finally we conclude that combination therapy (of TPM and NTP) is effective in patients with incomplete benefit using these agents in monotherapy.     

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with migraine and history of failure to 3–4 preventive medication categories: subgroup analysis from CONQUER study

BackgroundChronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) are associated with substantial headache-related disability, poor quality of life and global societal burden. In this subgroup analysis from the CONQUER study, we report efficacy outcomes from a pre-specified analysis of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with CM or EM and 3–4 prior preventive medication category failures due to inadequate efficacy (after at least 2 months at maximum tolerated dose), or safety or tolerability reasons. The patient population is of particular interest due to evidence of decreased quality of life and increased economic burden among patients with migraine that is inadequately managed and is of interest to decision-makers globally.MethodsKey outcomes included overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and proportions of patients achieving ≥30% (CM), ≥50%, and ≥ 75% reduction (response rates) in monthly migraine headache days across Months 1–3. Patient functioning and disability were evaluated at Month 3.ResultsOf the 462 randomized patients, 186 (40.3%) had a history of 3–4 preventive category failures. Galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significantly (P ≤ .001) larger overall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days (total: − 5.49 versus − 1.03; CM: − 6.70 versus − 1.56; EM: − 3.64 versus − 0.65). Similarly, the ≥50% response rate was significantly (P ≤ .001) higher with galcanezumab versus placebo (total: 41.0 versus 12.7; CM: 41.5 versus 8.4; EM: 41.1 versus 16.5). In the CM group, the ≥30% response rate was significantly higher in the galcanezumab group than the placebo group (CM, 57.5 versus 19.8, P ≤ .0001) as was the ≥75% response rate (13.3 versus 2.6, P ≤ .05). Galcanezumab also resulted in significant (P < .0001) improvements in patient functioning and reductions in disability.ConclusionsGalcanezumab was effective in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with CM or EM who had failed 3–4 prior preventive medication categories.Trial registrationCONQUER. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT03559257","term_id":"NCT03559257"}}NCT03559257.     

Efficacy and safety of transdermal buprenorphine: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 289 patients with severe cancer pain

Strong opioids are recommended for treating severe cancer pain in the advanced stages of the disease. Few data are available concerning the efficacy of buprenorphine in cancer pain. We compared transdermal buprenorphine 70 μg/h (BUP TDS) to placebo in an enriched design study. Opioid-tolerant patients with cancer pain requiring strong opioids in the dose range of 90–150 mg/d oral morphine equivalents entered a two-week run-in phase, during which they were converted to BUP TDS. Patients who could be stabilized on BUP TDS were randomized to BUP TDS or placebo patch for a two-week maintenance phase. Rescue medication (buprenorphine sublingual tablets 0.2 mg) was allowed as required. Response was defined as a mean pain intensity of <5 (0–10 scale) and a mean daily buprenorphine sublingual tablet intake of ≤2 tablets during the maintenance phase. Of 289 patients who entered the run-in phase, 100 discontinued treatment due to lack of efficacy or adverse events; 189 patients continued treatment in the maintenance phase (94 BUP TDS, 95 placebo), of whom 31 discontinued treatment (7 BUP TDS, 24 placebo). A significant difference in the number of treatment responders was observed: 70 BUP TDS (74.5%, 65.7–83.3) vs. 47 placebo (50%, 39.9–60.1) (P = 0.0003). This result was supported by a lower daily pain intensity, lower intake of buprenorphine sublingual tablets and fewer dropouts in the BUP TDS group. The incidence of adverse events was slightly higher for BUP TDS. In conclusion, BUP TDS 70 μg/h is an efficacious and safe treatment for patients with severe cancer pain.