Treatment Satisfaction of Galcanezumab in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Study

Yoshihisa Tatsuoka, Takao Takeshima, Akichika Ozeki, Taka Matsumura, Yoshihisa Tatsuoka, Takao Takeshima, Akichika Ozeki, Taka Matsumura

Abstract

Introduction: This analysis evaluated the treatment satisfaction of Japanese patients receiving galcanezumab (GMB) as a preventive medication for episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days).

Methods: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged 18-65 years at 40 centers in Japan. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (PBO, n = 230), GMB 120 mg (n = 115), or GMB 240 mg (n = 114) for 6 months. Patients' experience with treatment was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified (PSMQ-M) scales. PGI-S was administered at baseline and months 1-6, PGI-I at months 1-6, and PSMQ-M at months 1 and 6. Prespecified analyses were differences between GMB and PBO in PGI-I and the change from baseline in PGI-S, and evaluating positive responses for the PGI-I and PSMQ-M.

Results: Average change ± SE from baseline across months 1-6 was - 0.09 ± 0.05 (PBO), - 0.17 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p = 0.33), and - 0.30 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p = 0.013) for PGI-S. Average PGI-I across months 1-6 was 3.39 ± 0.05 (PBO), 2.55 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p < 0.05), and 2.71 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p < 0.05). Reductions of 2.8-3.0 monthly migraine headache days corresponded to 25-31% higher positive PGI-I response rates with GMB compared with PBO. Positive PSMQ-M response rates for satisfaction and preference were statistically significantly higher for GMB compared with PBO (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], all p < 0.05 vs. PBO): satisfaction GMB 120 mg (3.142 [1.936-5.098]) and GMB 240 mg (3.924 [2.417-6.369]), and preference GMB 120 mg (3.691 [2.265-6.017]) and GMB 240 mg (3.510 [2.180-5.652]).

Conclusion: Japanese patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with GMB are significantly more satisfied than those receiving PBO.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 (registered November 7, 2016).

Keywords: CGRP; Episodic migraine; Galcanezumab; Japan; Migraine; PGI-I; PGI-S; PSMQ-M; Patient satisfaction; Preventive therapy.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
LS mean change from baseline in overall PGI-S rating (average of months 1–6). More negative scores indicate a greater improvement from baseline (score range 1–7). GMB galcanezumab, LS least squares, MMRM mixed-model repeated measures, PBO placebo, PGI-S Patient Global Impression of Severity. *p = 0.013 vs. PBO (MMRM analysis). The MMRM analysis included fixed categorical effects (treatment, month, the baseline number of monthly migraine headache days [< 8, ≥ 8], and treatment-by-month interaction) and continuous fixed covariates (baseline value and baseline-by-month interaction)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Effect of GMB treatment on PGI-I score. Lower scores indicate greater improvement (score range 1–7). a Overall average (over months 1–6). b Monthly PGI-I score. GMB galcanezumab, LS least squares, MMRM mixed-model repeated measures, PBO placebo, PGI-I Patient Global Impression of Improvement, PGI-S Patient Global Impression of Severity, SE standard error. *p < 0.05 vs. PBO (MMRM analysis). The MMRM analysis included fixed categorical effects (treatment, month, the baseline number of monthly migraine headache days [< 8, ≥ 8], and treatment-by-month interaction), with PGI-S baseline value and PGI-S baseline-by-month interaction included as continuous fixed covariates

References

    1. Stovner LJ, Nichols E, Steiner TJ, et al. 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. 2018;17(11):954–976. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30322-3.
    1. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Kolodner K, Stewart WF, Liberman JN, Steiner TJ. The family impact of migraine: population-based studies in the USA and UK. Cephalalgia. 2003;23(6):429–440. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00543.x.
    1. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF. 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. 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(4):644–655. doi: 10.1111/head.12055.
    1. Agostoni EC, Barbanti P, Calabresi P, et al. Current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in chronic migraine: a narrative review. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s10194-019-1038-4.
    1. Loder E, Rizzoli P. Pharmacologic prevention of migraine: a narrative review of the state of the art in 2018. Headache. 2018;58(Suppl 3):218–229. doi: 10.1111/head.13375.
    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(9):1080–1088. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1212.
    1. Skljarevski V, Matharu M, Millen BA, Ossipov MH, Kim B-K, 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(8):1442–1454. doi: 10.1177/0333102418779543.
    1. Sacco S, Bendtsen L, Ashina M, et al. European headache federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor for migraine prevention. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s10194-018-0955-y.
    1. Dodick DW, Silberstein S, Saper J, et al. The impact of topiramate on health-related quality of life indicators in chronic migraine. Headache. 2007;47(10):1398–1408. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2007.00950.x.
    1. Ayer DW, Skljarevski V, Ford JH, Nyhuis AW, Lipton RB, Aurora SK. Measures of functioning in patients with episodic migraine: findings from a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial with galcanezumab. Headache. 2018;58(8):1225–1235. doi: 10.1111/head.13383.
    1. Ford JH, Ayer DW, Zhang Q, et al. Two randomized migraine studies of galcanezumab: effects on patient functioning and disability. Neurology. 2019;93(5):e508–e517. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007856.
    1. Shibata M, Nakamura T, Ozeki A, Ueda K, Nichols RM. Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1 score improvement in Japanese patients with episodic migraine by galcanezumab treatment: Japan phase 2 study. J Pain Res. 2020;13:3531–3538. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S287781.
    1. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Reed M, Lipton RB. Chronic migraine in the population: burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. Neurology. 2008;71(8):559–566. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7.
    1. Ailani J, Andrews JS, Rettiganti M, Nicholson RA. Impact of galcanezumab on total pain burden: findings from phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic or chronic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2, and REGAIN trials) J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01190-7.
    1. Silberstein SD, Stauffer VL, Day KA, Lipsius S, Wilson MC. Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s10194-019-1024-x.
    1. Stauffer VL, Turner I, Kemmer P, et al. Effect of age on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab treatment in adult patients with migraine: results from six phase 2 and phase 3 randomized clinical trials. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s10194-020-01148-9.
    1. Ford JH, Foster SA, Stauffer VL, Ruff DD, Aurora SK, Versijpt J. Patient satisfaction, health care resource utilization, and acute headache medication use with galcanezumab: results from a 12-month open-label study in patients with migraine. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018;12:2413–2424. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S182563.
    1. Sakai F, Igarashi H. Prevalence of migraine in Japan: a nationwide survey. Cephalalgia. 1997;17(1):15–22. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1997.1701015.x.
    1. Takeshima T, Ishizaki K, Fukuhara Y, et al. Population-based door-to-door survey of migraine in Japan: the Daisen study. Headache. 2004;44(1):8–19. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2004.04004.x.
    1. Takeshima T, Wan Q, Zhang Y, et al. Prevalence, burden, and clinical management of migraine in China, Japan, and South Korea: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s10194-019-1062-4.
    1. Ueda K, Ye W, Lombard L, et al. Real-world treatment patterns and patient-reported outcomes in episodic and chronic migraine in Japan: analysis of data from the Adelphi migraine disease specific programme. J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s10194-019-1012-1.
    1. Sakai F, Ozeki A, Skljarevski V. Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine headache in Japanese patients with episodic migraine: a phase 2 randomized controlled clinical trial. Cephalalgia Rep. 2020;3:1–10.
    1. Camporeale A, Kudrow D, Sides R, et al. A phase 3, long-term, open-label safety study of galcanezumab in patients with migraine. BMC Neurol. 2018;18(1):188. doi: 10.1186/s12883-018-1193-2.
    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. 2018;91(24):e2211–e2221. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006640.
    1. Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(1):98–101. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.379.
    1. Hossack T, Woo H. Validation of a patient reported outcome questionnaire for assessing success of endoscopic prostatectomy. Prostate Int. 2014;2(4):182–187. doi: 10.12954/PI.14066.
    1. Kalali A. Patient satisfaction with, and acceptability of, atypical antipsychotics. Curr Med Res Opin. 1999;15(2):135–137. doi: 10.1185/03007999909113374.
    1. Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (Japan). PMDA expert discussion report. 2013. . Accessed 23 Jul 2020 (in Japanese).
    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(3):395–404. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000689.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera