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

Michel Lanteri-Minet, Peter J Goadsby, Uwe Reuter, Shihua Wen, Peggy Hours-Zesiger, Michel D Ferrari, Jan Klatt, Michel Lanteri-Minet, Peter J Goadsby, Uwe Reuter, Shihua Wen, Peggy Hours-Zesiger, Michel D Ferrari, Jan Klatt

Abstract

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: ML-M received grants and honoraria for advisory boards, speaker panels or investigation studies from Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, ATI, BMS, Boehringer, Boston Scientific, CoLucid, Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt Benckiser, Saint-Jude, Sanofi-Aventis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, UCB and Zambon; PJG, received grants and personal fees from Amgen and Eli Lilly; personal fees from Alder Biopharmaceuticals, Allergan, Autonomic Technologies Inc, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Electrocore, eNeura, MundiPharma, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Trigemina Inc, WL Gore, MedicoLegal work, Massachusetts Medical Society, Up-to-Date, Oxford University Press and Wolters Kluwer; and a patent for magnetic stimulation for headache assigned to eNeura without fee; UR received consulting fees, speaking/teaching fees and/or research grants from Allergan, Amgen, Autonomic Technologies, CoLucid, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Novartis, StreamMedUp and Teva Pharmaceuticals; SW, PH-Z and JK are employees of, and hold stocks in, Novartis; MDF received grants, consultancy or trial support from Medtronic, ElectroCore, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Novartis, and independent support from the European Community, NWO, NIH and the Dutch Heart Foundation.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mean change from baseline in HIT-6. Adjusted mean change (SE) reported. HIT-6, Headache Impact Test; TD, treatment difference.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Change from baseline in WPAI scores and subscores at Week 12. Adjusted mean reported. A negative change in WPAI score indicates an improvement in the work productivity domain. TD, treatment difference; WPAI, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment.

References

    1. Shi L, Lehto SG, Zhu DXD, et al. . Pharmacologic characterization of AMG 334, a potent and selective human monoclonal antibody against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2016;356:223–31. 10.1124/jpet.115.227793
    1. Dodick DW, Ashina M, Brandes JL, et al. . Arise: a phase 3 randomized trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1026–37. 10.1177/0333102418759786
    1. Goadsby PJ, Reuter U, Hallström Y, et al. . A controlled trial of erenumab for episodic migraine. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2123–32. 10.1056/NEJMoa1705848
    1. Tepper S, Ashina M, Reuter U, et al. . Safety and efficacy of erenumab for preventive treatment of chronic migraine: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:425–34. 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30083-2
    1. Ashina M, Tepper S, Brandes JL, et al. . 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. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1611–21. 10.1177/0333102418788347
    1. Goadsby PJ, Paemeleire K, Broessner G, et al. . 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. Cephalalgia 2019;39:817–26. 10.1177/0333102419835459
    1. Reuter U, Goadsby PJ, Lanteri-Minet M, et al. . 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. Lancet 2018;392:2280–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32534-0
    1. Buse DC, Manack AN, Fanning KM, et al. . Chronic migraine prevalence, disability, and sociodemographic factors: results from the American migraine prevalence and prevention study. Headache 2012;52:1456–70. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2012.02223.x
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) . The International classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018;38:1–211.
    1. Evers S, Afra J, Frese A, et al. . EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine--revised report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol 2009;16:968–81. 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02748.x
    1. Kawata AK, Hsieh R, Bender R, et al. . Psychometric evaluation of a novel instrument assessing the impact of migraine on physical functioning: the migraine physical function impact diary. Headache 2017;57:1385–98. 10.1111/head.13162
    1. Kawata AK, Hareendran A, Poon J-L. Evaluating clinically meaningful within-subject change in functioning associated with migraine prevention using the migraine physical function impact diary (MPFID). Cephalalgia 2017;37:344–5.
    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;12:963–74. 10.1023/A:1026119331193
    1. Smelt AFH, Assendelft WJJ, Terwee CB, et al. . What is a clinically relevant change on the HIT-6 questionnaire? an estimation in a primary-care population of migraine patients. Cephalalgia 2014;34:29–36. 10.1177/0333102413497599
    1. Coeytaux RR, Kaufman JS, Chao R, et al. . Four methods of estimating the minimal important difference score were compared to establish a clinically significant change in headache impact test. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:374–80. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.05.010
    1. Bayliss M, Batenhorst A. The HIT-6TM A user’s guide. QualityMetric Incorporated: Lincoln, RI, 2002.
    1. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. Pharmacoeconomics 1993;4:353–65. 10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006
    1. Stewart WF, Wood GC, Manack A, et al. . Employment and work impact of chronic migraine and episodic migraine. J Occup Environ Med 2010;52:8–14. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181c1dc56
    1. Blumenfeld AM, Varon SF, Wilcox TK, et al. . Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the International burden of migraine study (IBMS). Cephalalgia 2011;31:301–15. 10.1177/0333102410381145
    1. Ayer DW, Skljarevski V, Ford JH, et al. . Measures of functioning in patients with episodic migraine: findings from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2B trial with galcanezumab. Headache 2018;58:1225–35. 10.1111/head.13383
    1. Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, 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;38:1442–54. 10.1177/0333102418779543
    1. Torres-Ferrus M, Alpuente A, Pozo-Rosich P. How much do calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies improve the quality of life in migraine? a patient's perspective. Curr Opin Neurol 2019;32:395–404. 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000689

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel