Analysis of Initial Nonresponders to Galcanezumab in Patients With Episodic or Chronic Migraine: Results From the EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Studies

Russell Nichols, Erin Doty, Sara Sacco, Dustin Ruff, Eric Pearlman, Sheena K Aurora, Russell Nichols, Erin Doty, Sara Sacco, Dustin Ruff, Eric Pearlman, Sheena K Aurora

Abstract

Objective: To examine the likelihood of response with continued galcanezumab treatment in patients with episodic or chronic migraine without initial clinical improvement.

Background: A percentage of patients with migraine may require additional time on pharmacotherapy but discontinue treatment prematurely. Additionally, recognizing when continued treatment is unlikely to provide improvement limits unnecessary exposure.

Methods: Post hoc analysis of response after continued galcanezumab treatment was conducted in a subset of patients with episodic (N = 879) and chronic (N = 555) migraine who did not achieve "good" early improvement (episodic, ≥50% reduction in baseline migraine headache days [MHD] and chronic, ≥30% reduction) after 1 month of dosing (NR-1; episodic, n = 450 and chronic, n = 306). This subset was categorized by level of reduction in MHD during 1 month of treatment: "modest" (>30% to <50% fewer MHD for episodic and >10% to <30% fewer MHD for chronic), "limited" (episodic only; >10% to ≤30% fewer MHD), or "minimal/no" early improvement (≤10% fewer MHD to ≤10% more MHD), or "worsening" (>10% more MHD). The percentages of patients having "better" (≥75% fewer MHD for episodic and ≥50% for chronic), "good," or "little-to-no" (≤10% fewer MHD) response during the remaining treatment period were calculated for each category. Similarly, the subset of NR-1 patients who did not achieve "good" early improvement after 2 months of treatment (NR-2; episodic, n = 290 and chronic, n = 240) were categorized by level of their average monthly reduction across 1 and 2 months using similar categories.

Results: Of NR-1 patients with episodic migraine having "modest" early improvement, 62% (96/155) achieved "good" and 20% (31/155) achieved "better" responses with continued treatment. A percentage of patients with "limited" (43%; 46/108) or "minimal/no" (34%; 29/85) early improvement, or "worsening" (20%; 20/102) achieved a "good" response after continued treatment. A percentage of NR-1 patients with chronic migraine having "modest" early improvement achieved "good" (38%; 44/116) and "better" (13%; 15/116) responses with continued treatment. A "good" response was achieved for a percentage of patients with "minimal/no" early improvement (17%; 23/133). Similar patterns were observed for the NR-2 subset, though percentages were lower.

Conclusions: Galcanezumab-treated patients with episodic or chronic migraine without response following 1 or 2 months of treatment appear to have a reasonable likelihood of continued improvement in months following initial treatment and this opportunity is more likely in patients showing greater early improvements. While a small percentage of patients with episodic or chronic migraine who experienced worsening in the number of MHD following initial treatment responded with continued treatment, most do not show substantial reduction in MHD. Overall benefit of therapy should be determined collaboratively between the patient and physician.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02614183 NCT02614196 NCT02614261.

Keywords: chronic; continued treatment; episodic; initial response; migraine; preventive.

© 2018 Eli Lilly and Company. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Headache Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage of patients with episodic migraine by improvement after 1 month and 2 months of galcanezumab treatment. MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐1 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥50% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 of galcanezumab treatment; NR‐2 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥50% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 or Month 2 of galcanezumab treatment.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Percentage of patients with chronic migraine by improvement after 1 month and 2 months of galcanezumab treatment. MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐1 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥30% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 of galcanezumab treatment; NR‐2 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥30% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 or Month 2 of galcanezumab treatment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Response of patients with episodic migraine (NR‐1) after continued galcanezumab treatment (remaining months 2‐6). MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐1 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥50% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 of galcanezumab treatment.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Response of patients with chronic migraine (NR‐1) after continued galcanezumab treatment (remaining months 2‐3). MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐1 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥30% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 of galcanezumab treatment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Response of patients with episodic migraine (NR‐2) after continued galcanezumab treatment (remaining months 3‐6). MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐2 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥50% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 or Month 2 of galcanezumab treatment.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Response of patients with chronic migraine (NR‐2) after continued galcanezumab treatment (remaining 1 month). MHD = migraine headache days; NR‐2 = patients without response (with response defined as ≥30% reduction of MHD) after Month 1 or Month 2 of galcanezumab treatment.

References

    1. Chaushev N, Milanov I. Impact of migraine and migraine treatment on patient’s capacity to work and quality of life. J Clin Med. 2009;2:26‐31.
    1. Rutberg S, Öhrling K. Migraine – more than a headache: Women’s experiences of living with migraine. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:329‐336.
    1. Abu BN, Tanprawate S, Lambru G, Torkamani M, Jahanshahi M, Matharu M. Quality of life in primary headache disorders: A review. Cephalalgia. 2016;36:67‐91.
    1. Lampl C, Thomas H, Stovner LJ, et al. Interictal burden attributable to episodic headache: Findings from the Eurolight project. J Headache Pain. 2016;17:9.
    1. Loder E, Burch R, Rizzoli P. The 2012 AHS/AAN guidelines for prevention of episodic migraine: A summary and comparison with other recent clinical practice guidelines. Headache. 2012;52:930‐945.
    1. Hepp Z, Bloudek LM, Varon SF. Systematic review of migraine prophylaxis adherence and persistence. J Manag Care Pharm. 2014;20:22‐33.
    1. Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, Gillard P, Hansen RN, Devine EB. Adherence to oral migraine‐preventive medications among patients with chronic migraine. Cephalalgia. 2015;35:478‐488.
    1. Hepp Z, Dodick DW, Varon SF, et al. Persistence and switching patterns of oral migraine prophylactic medications among patients with chronic migraine: A retrospective claims analysis. Cephalalgia. 2017;37:470‐485.
    1. D’Amico D, Tepper SJ. Prophylaxis of migraine: General principles and patient acceptance. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2008;4:1155‐1167.
    1. Blumenfeld AM, Bloudek LM, Becker WJ, et al. Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: Results from the Second International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS‐II). Headache. 2013;53:644‐655.
    1. Turner DP, Smitherman TA, Penzien DB, Lipton RB, Houle TT. Rethinking headache chronification. Headache. 2013;53:901‐907.
    1. Manack A, Buse DC, Serrano D, Turkel CC, Lipton RB. Rates, predictors, and consequences of remission from chronic migraine to episodic migraine. Neurology. 2011;76:711‐718.
    1. Stauffer VL, Dodick DW, Zhang Q, Carter JN, Ailani J, Conley RR. Evaluation of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: The EVOLVE‐1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol. 2018;75:1080‐1088.
    1. Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, Ossipov MH, Kim BK, Yang JY. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE–2 phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia. 2018;38:1442‐1454.
    1. Detke HC, Goadsby PJ, Wang S, Friedman DI, Selzler KJ, Aurora SK. Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: The randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled REGAIN study. Neurology. in press.
    1. Lipton RB, Silberstein SD. Episodic and chronic migraine headache: Breaking down barriers to optimal treatment and prevention. Headache. 2015;55:103‐122.
    1. ICHD‐3 beta . The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia. 2013;33:629‐808.
    1. Silberstein S, Tfelt‐Hansen P, Dodick DW, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in adults. Cephalalgia. 2008;28:484‐495.
    1. SAS Institute Inc . SAS/STAT® 14.3 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2017.
    1. Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, Dodick DW, Argoff C, Ashman E. Evidence‐based guideline update: Pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78:1337‐1345. Erratum. In: Neurology. 2013;80:871.
    1. Estemalik E, Tepper S. Preventive treatment in migraine and the new US guidelines. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2013;9:709‐720.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다