Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PERSIST study

Bo Hu, Gang Li, Xiaohong Li, Shan Wu, Tingmin Yu, Xiang Li, Hongru Zhao, Zhihua Jia, Junpeng Zhuang, Shengyuan Yu, Bo Hu, Gang Li, Xiaohong Li, Shan Wu, Tingmin Yu, Xiang Li, Hongru Zhao, Zhihua Jia, Junpeng Zhuang, Shengyuan Yu

Abstract

Background: Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy and good tolerability in patients with episodic migraine in previous phase 3 trials. We report results from the PERSIST study, which was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine from China, India, and Russia.

Methods: This phase 3 study was conducted at 40 centers in China (n = 26), India (n = 10), and Russia (n = 4). Eligible adult patients with episodic migraine were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive monthly galcanezumab 120 mg (with 240 mg loading dose) or placebo during a double-blind, 3-month treatment period. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days (MHDs). Key secondary endpoints were the mean proportion of patients with ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% reductions from baseline in MHDs and mean change in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function-Restrictive domain score.

Results: In total, 520 patients were randomized and received at least one dose of galcanezumab (N = 261) or placebo (N = 259). The least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in monthly MHDs over 3 months was significantly greater with galcanezumab compared with placebo (-3.81 days vs. -1.99 days; p < 0.0001). Significantly greater mean proportions of patients with galcanezumab versus placebo had ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% reductions from baseline in MHDs (all p < 0.0001). The overall mean improvement from baseline in MSQ Role Function-Restrictive score over 3 months was significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo (p < 0.0001). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the galcanezumab and placebo group on any safety parameters except for a higher incidence of injection site pruritus (5.0% vs. 0.0%), injection site reaction (3.8% vs. 0.4%), and injection site discomfort (2.3% vs. 0.0%). TEAEs related to injection sites were mild in severity, except in 1 patient who had a moderate injection site reaction. Six serious adverse events were reported by 6 patients (2 galcanezumab, 4 placebo).

Conclusions: Galcanezumab 120 mg once monthly was effective and well tolerated in patients with episodic migraine from China, India, and Russia.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03963232 (PERSIST), registered May 24, 2019.

Keywords: Calcitonin gene-related peptide; Episodic migraine; Galcanezumab; Humanized monoclonal antibody.

Conflict of interest statement

JZ is a full-time employee of Eli Lily and Company. SY serves as associated editor of the Journal of Headache and Pain and as a member of the International Headache Society. ZJ has no competing interests. BH, GL, XL, SW, TY, XL, HZ, and SY declare receiving clinical research fees from Eli Lilly and Company for participating as investigators in the PERSIST study.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design. aEligibility period determined between a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 40 days. bPatients randomized to galcanezumab 120 mg received a loading dose of 240 mg at the first injection only (Visit 3). cTelephone visits. dAt Visit 7, patients randomized to placebo who entered the open-label extension received galcanezumab at a loading dose of 240 mg, while patients randomized to galcanezumab 120 mg continued treatment at the 120 mg dose. SP, study period; X indicates when dosing occurred
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Patient disposition
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
a Overall LS mean change from month 1 to 3 in monthly migraine headache days; b LS mean change at month 1 to 3 in monthly migraine headache days LS, least squares; SE, standard error. ***p < 0.0001 versus placebo
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Key secondary endpoints: a mean percentage of patients with ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% reductions in monthly migraine headache days; b LS mean change in the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive CI, confidence interval; LS, least squares; SE, standard error. ***p < 0.0001 versus placebo

References

    1. GBD 2016 Headache Collaborators (2018) Global, regional, and national burden of migraine and tension-type headache, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet Neurol 17(11):954–76
    1. Yao C et al (2019) Burden of headache disorders in China, 1990–2017: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. J Headache Pain 20(1):102
    1. Lipton RB, et al. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology. 2007;68(5):343–349. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000252808.97649.21.
    1. Katsarava Z, et al. Poor medical care for people with migraine in Europe - evidence from the Eurolight study. J Headache Pain. 2018;19(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s10194-018-0839-1.
    1. Li X, et al. Diagnosis and treatment status of migraine: a clinic-based study in China. J Neurol Sci. 2012;315(1–2):89–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2011.11.021.
    1. Yu S, et al. Migraine treatment and healthcare costs: retrospective analysis of the China Health Insurance Research Association (CHIRA) database. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01117-2.
    1. Eigenbrodt AK et al (2021) Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps. Nat Rev Neurol (8):501-51
    1. Ha H, Gonzalez A. Migraine headache prophylaxis. Am Fam Physician. 2019;99(1):17–24.
    1. Hepp Z, Bloudek LM, Varon SF. Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20(1):22–33. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.1.22.
    1. Rizzoli P, Loder EW. Tolerance to the beneficial effects of prophylactic migraine drugs: a systematic review of causes and mechanisms. Headache. 2011;51(8):1323–1335. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01985.x.
    1. Villalón CM, Olesen J. The role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and efficacy of CGRP receptor antagonists as acute antimigraine drugs. Pharmacol Ther. 2009;124(3):309–323. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2009.09.003.
    1. Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L. The trigeminovascular system and migraine: studies characterizing cerebrovascular and neuropeptide changes seen in humans and cats. Ann Neurol. 1993;33(1):48–56. doi: 10.1002/ana.410330109.
    1. Goadsby PJ, Edvinsson L, Ekman R. Vasoactive peptide release in the extracerebral circulation of humans during migraine headache. Ann Neurol. 1990;28(2):183–187. doi: 10.1002/ana.410280213.
    1. Lassen LH, et al. CGRP may play a causative role in migraine. Cephalalgia. 2002;22(1):54–61. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2002.00310.x.
    1. Overeem LH, et al. Indirect comparison of topiramate and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2021;35(8):805–820. doi: 10.1007/s40263-021-00834-9.
    1. Drellia K, et al. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: a systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis. Cephalalgia. 2021;41(7):851–864. doi: 10.1177/0333102421989601.
    1. Stauffer VL, et al. Evaluation of Galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75(9):1080–1088. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1212.
    1. Skljarevski V, et al. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(8):1442–1454. doi: 10.1177/0333102418779543.
    1. Detke HC, et al. Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study. Neurology. 2018;91(24):e2211–e2221. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006640.
    1. Mulleners WM, et al. 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. 2020;19(10):814–825. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30279-9.
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2018) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38(1):1–211
    1. Speck R et al (2021) The Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Role Function Restrictive Domain: Defining Clinically Meaningful Categories of Functional Impairment Severity. J Headache Pain 22(Supp 1): P0226.
    1. Guy W (1976) ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology, Revised. 217-22. National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch. Rockville.
    1. Lipton RB, et al. Clinical utility of an instrument assessing migraine disability: the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. Headache. 2001;41(9):854–861. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2001.01156.x.
    1. Tfelt-Hansen P, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia. 2000;20(9):765–86. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2000.00117.x.
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2013) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 33(9):629-808
    1. Stovner L, et al. The global burden of headache: a documentation of headache prevalence and disability worldwide. Cephalalgia. 2007;27(3):193–210. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2982.2007.01288.x.
    1. Kwon S, Gil YE, Lee MJ. Real-world efficacy of galcanezumab for the treatment of migraine in Korean patients. Cephalalgia. 2022;42(8):705–714. doi: 10.1177/03331024221076481.
    1. Vernieri F, et al. Galcanezumab for the prevention of high frequency episodic and chronic migraine in real life in Italy: a multicenter prospective cohort study (the GARLIT study) J Headache Pain. 2021;22(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s10194-021-01247-1.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel