Measuring dose-related efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention: post hoc analysis of PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2

Rami Apelian, Lee Boyle, Joe Hirman, Divya Asher, Rami Apelian, Lee Boyle, Joe Hirman, Divya Asher

Abstract

Background: Eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg met the primary efficacy endpoint in both PROMISE clinical trials, significantly reducing frequency of monthly migraine days over Weeks 1‒12. The objective of this analysis was to assess the clinical response to eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg within the pivotal phase 3 PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 studies to potentially identify subsets of patients with meaningful differences between doses.

Methods: Patients from PROMISE-1 (NCT02559895) and PROMISE-2 (NCT02974153) trials were divided into subgroups based on demographic and migraine characteristics, and baseline questionnaire responses. For each subgroup, the overall likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% migraine responder rate (MRR) over Weeks 1-12 and Weeks 13-24 with either eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg was calculated using odds ratios (with associated confidence intervals) and compared.

Results: In PROMISE-1 (episodic migraine) and PROMISE-2 (chronic migraine), the likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 1-12 and Weeks 13-24 was roughly equivalent for patients receiving either dose level of eptinezumab. Given the number of comparisons performed, sporadic apparent differences were seen but no replicated patterns between studies emerged. In PROMISE-1, no differences were observed in any subgroup over Weeks 1-12. In PROMISE-2, patients reporting < 15 monthly migraine days at baseline, any problems with mobility per the EQ-5D-5L, or a social functioning score > 45.0 per the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), appeared more likely to achieve ≥ 50% MRR with 300 mg over Weeks 1-12, with none of these being apparent in PROMISE-1.

Conclusions: Overall, these data suggest that across PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2, there were no meaningful differences in the likelihood of achieving ≥ 50% MRR between the eptinezumab dose levels in the majority of patient subgroups. In the few subgroups that displayed small, but potentially meaningful differences, patients were more likely to achieve ≥ 50% MRR with eptinezumab 300 mg; however, minimal consistency across both studies and time periods was noted.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. PROMISE-1: NCT02559895 . PROMISE-2: NCT02974153 .

Keywords: Dose response; Eptinezumab; Migraine; Patient subgroups.

Conflict of interest statement

R. Apelian is a member of the speaker bureau for Lundbeck; advisor/consultant/speaker for Allergan/Abbvie, Biohaven, and Eli Lilly.

L. Boyle and D. Asher are full-time employees of Lundbeck.

J. Hirman is an employee of Pacific Northwest Statistical Consulting, Inc., a contracted service provider of biostatistical resources for Lundbeck.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Odds ratio of ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 1‒12 in PROMISE-1 subgroups defined by baseline demographics and patient-reported outcome measures. CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level scale; MHDs, monthly headache days; MMDs, monthly migraine days; MRR, migraine responder rate; N/A, not applicable (sample size too small); OR, odds ratio; SF-36, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Odds ratio of ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 1‒12 in PROMISE-2 subgroups defined by baseline demographics and patient-reported outcome measures. CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level scale; HIT-6, 6-item Headache Impact Test; MHDs, monthly headache days; MMDs, monthly migraine days; MRR, migraine responder rate; OR, odds ratio; PI-MBS, patient-identified most bothersome symptom; SF-36, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Odds ratio of ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 13‒24 in PROMISE-1 subgroups defined by baseline demographics and patient-reported outcome measures. CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level scale; MHDs, monthly headache days; MMDs, monthly migraine days; MRR, migraine responder rate; N/A, not applicable (sample size too small); OR, odds ratio; SF-36, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Odds ratio of ≥ 50% MRR over Weeks 13‒24 in PROMISE-2 subgroups defined by baseline demographics and patient-reported outcome measures. CI, confidence interval; EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level scale; HIT-6, 6-item Headache Impact Test; MHDs, monthly headache days; MMDs, monthly migraine days; MRR, migraine responder rate; PI-MBS, patient-identified most bothersome symptom; OR, odds ratio; SF-36, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey

References

    1. Feigin VL, Nichols E, Alam T, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of neurological disorders, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18:459–480. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30499-X.
    1. Feigin VL, Vos T, Alahdab F, et al. Burden of Neurological Disorders Across the US From 1990–2017. JAMA Neurol. 2021;78:165. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.4152.
    1. Raffaelli B, Reuter U. The Biology of Monoclonal Antibodies: Focus on Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Prophylactic Migraine Therapy. NeuroRx. 2018;15:324–335. doi: 10.1007/S13311-018-0622-7.
    1. Garcia-Martinez LF, Raport CJ, Ojala EW, et al. Pharmacologic characterization of ALD403, a potent neutralizing humanized monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2020;374:93–103. doi: 10.1124/JPET.119.264671/-/DC1.
    1. Baker B, Schaeffler B, Beliveau M, et al (2020) Population pharmacokinetic and exposure‐response analysis of eptinezumab in the treatment of episodic and chronic migraine. Pharmacol Res Persp. 8:e00567. 10.1002/prp2.567
    1. (2021) VYEPTI [package insert]. Bothell, WA
    1. Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Smith J, et al. Efficacy and safety of eptinezumab in patients with chronic migraine. Neurology. 2020;94:e1365–e1377. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009169.
    1. Ashina M, Saper J, Cady R, et al. Eptinezumab in episodic migraine: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (PROMISE-1) Cephalalgia. 2020;40:241–254. doi: 10.1177/0333102420905132.
    1. Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS (2021) The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 61:1021–1039. 10.1111/head.14153
    1. Tassorelli C, Diener HC, Dodick DW, et al. Guidelines of the International Headache Society for controlled trials of preventive treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia. 2018;38:815–832. doi: 10.1177/0333102418758283.
    1. About Adult BMI | Healthy Weight, Nutrition, and Physical Activity | CDC. Accessed 9 Mar 2022. .
    1. Age and Sex Composition in the United States: 2019. Accessed 9 Mar 2022. .
    1. Jedynak J, Eross E, Gendolla A, et al. Shift from high-frequency to low-frequency episodic migraine in patients treated with galcanezumab: results from two global randomized clinical trials. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:48. doi: 10.1186/S10194-021-01222-W.
    1. Mulleners WM, Kim BK, Láinez MJA, et al (2020) Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 19:814–825. 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30279-9
    1. Silberstein SD, Stauffer VL, Day KA, et al. Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: Subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2) J Headache Pain. 2019;20:1–11. doi: 10.1186/S10194-019-1024-X.
    1. Simone M, Giulia DA, Claudia A, et al. Task-switching abilities in episodic and chronic migraine. Neurol Sci. 2022;2021:1–8. doi: 10.1007/S10072-021-05837-4.
    1. Amoozegar F, Khan Z, Oviedo-Ovando M, et al. The Burden of Illness of Migraine in Canada: New Insights on Humanistic and Economic Cost. Can J Neurol Sci. 2021;00:1–14. doi: 10.1017/CJN.2021.75.
    1. Doane MJ, Gupta S, Fang J, et al. The Humanistic and Economic Burden of Migraine in Europe: a Cross-Sectional Survey in Five Countries. Neurol Ther. 2020;9:535–549. doi: 10.1007/S40120-020-00196-2/TABLES/3.
    1. Lipton RB, Nicholson RA, Reed ML, et al (2022) Diagnosis, consultation, treatment, and impact of migraine in the US: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study. Headache: J Head Face Pain 62:122–140. 10.1111/head.14259
    1. Buse DC, Reed ML, Fanning KM, et al (2020) Demographics, Headache Features, and Comorbidity Profiles in Relation to Headache Frequency in People With Migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache: J Head Face Pain 60:2340–2356. 10.1111/HEAD.13966
    1. Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, et al. Patient-identified most bothersome symptom in preventive migraine treatment with eptinezumab: A novel patient-centered outcome. Headache. 2021;61:766–776. doi: 10.1111/head.14120.
    1. Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, Dodick DW, et al Evaluating the Clinical Utility of the Patient-Identified Most Bothersome Symptom Measure from PROMISE-2 for Research in Migraine Prevention. Headache. In Press. 10.1111/head.14295
    1. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1727–1736. doi: 10.1007/S11136-011-9903-X.
    1. Jiang R, Janssen MFB, Pickard AS. US population norms for the EQ-5D-5L and comparison of norms from face-to-face and online samples. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:803–816. doi: 10.1007/S11136-020-02650-Y/FIGURES/1.
    1. Ware J., Jr SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:3130–3139. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008.
    1. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:963–974. doi: 10.1023/A:1026119331193.
    1. Yan Z, Xue T, Chen S, et al. Different dosage regimens of Eptinezumab for the treatment of migraine: a meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials. J Headache Pain. 2021;22:10. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01220-y.
    1. TR Smith, ELH Spierings, R Cady, et al (2021) Safety and tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine: a pooled analysis of 5 clinical trials. J Headache Pain 22. 10.1186/S10194-021-01227-5
    1. Serrano D, Lipton RB, Scher AI, et al. Fluctuations in episodic and chronic migraine status over the course of 1 year: implications for diagnosis, treatment and clinical trial design. J Headache Pain. 2017;18:101. doi: 10.1186/s10194-017-0787-1.
    1. Buse DC, Winner PK, Charleston L, et al. Early response to eptinezumab indicates high likelihood of continued response in patients with chronic migraine. J Headache Pain. 2022;23:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01387-y.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit