Galcanezumab in episodic migraine: subgroup analyses of efficacy by high versus low frequency of migraine headaches in phase 3 studies (EVOLVE-1 & EVOLVE-2).

BACKGROUND: Patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) have a greater disease burden than those with low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM). Acute treatment overuse increases the risk of migraine chronification in patients with HFEM. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is effective for migraine prevention with a favorable safety profile. Here, we investigate whether there are differences in galcanezumab efficacy in patients with LFEM or with HFEM. METHODS: Data were pooled from two double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials; EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2. Patients were 18-65 years old, experienced 4-14 monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) for ≥1 year prior, with onset at \u3c 50 years of age. Migraine headaches were tracked via electronic patient-reported outcome system and randomization was stratified by low (LFEM; 4-7 monthly MHDs) or high (HFEM; 8-14 monthly MHDs) frequency. Subgroup analysis compared the HFEM and LFEM subgroups with a linear or generalized linear mixed model repeated measures approach. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat patients (N = 1773) had a mean age of 41.3 years, were mostly white (75%), female (85%), and 66% of patients had HFEM. In both the LFEM and HFEM subgroups, the overall (Months 1-6) and monthly changes from baseline in monthly MHDs and monthly MHDs with acute medication use compared with placebo were statistically significantly reduced for galcanezumab 120-mg and 240-mg. Galcanezumab (120-mg and 240-mg) significantly decreased the overall and monthly MHDs with nausea and/or vomiting, and with photophobia and phonophobia versus placebo in patients with LFEM or HFEM. In both subgroups, the mean overall (Months 1-6) and monthly percentages of patients with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly MHDs from baseline were statistically significantly greater in patients receiving either dose of galcanezumab versus placebo. Galcanezumab (120-mg and 240-mg) significantly improved the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function-restrictive domain score as well as the Migraine Disability Assessment total score versus placebo for patients with LFEM or HFEM. There were no significant subgroup-by-treatment interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab was as effective in patients with HFEM as in those with LFEM. Associated symptoms, quality of life, and disability were similarly improved in patients with HFEM or LFEM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02614183 , NCT02614196

Impact of race on efficacy and safety during treatment with olanzapine in schizophrenia, schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To examine potential differences in efficacy and safety of treatment with olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia of white and black descent.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A post-hoc, pooled analysis of 6 randomized, double-blind trials in the treatment of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder compared white (N = 605) and black (N = 375) patients treated with olanzapine (5 to 20 mg/day) for 24 to 28 weeks. Efficacy measurements included the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score; and positive, negative, and general psychopathology scores; and the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) scores at 6 months. Safety measures included differences in the frequencies of adverse events along with measures of extrapyramidal symptoms, weight, glucose, and lipid changes over time.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>51% of black patients and 45% of white patients experienced early study discontinuation (P = .133). Of those who discontinued, significantly more white patients experienced psychiatric worsening (P = .002) while significantly more black patients discontinued for reasons other than efficacy or tolerability (P = .014). Discontinuation for intolerability was not different between groups (P = .320). For the estimated change in PANSS total score over 6 months, there was no significant difference in efficacy between white and black patients (P = .928), nor on the estimated PANSS positive (P = .435), negative (P = .756) or general psychopathology (P = .165) scores. Overall, there was no significant difference in the change in CGI-S score between groups from baseline to endpoint (P = .979). Weight change was not significantly different in white and black patients over 6 months (P = .127). However, mean weight change was significantly greater in black versus white patients at Weeks 12 and 20 only (P = .028 and P = .026, respectively). Additionally, a significantly greater percentage of black patients experienced clinically significant weight gain (≥7%) at anytime compared to white patients (36.1% vs. 30.4%, P = .021). Changes across metabolic parameters (combined fasting and random lipids and glucose) were also not significantly different between groups, with the exception of a greater categorical change in total cholesterol from borderline to high among white subjects and a categorical change from normal to low in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol among white males.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The findings did not demonstrate overall substantive differences in efficacy or safety between white and black patients diagnosed with schizophrenia or related disorders treated with olanzapine. However, a significantly greater percentage of black patients (36.1%) experienced clinically significant weight gain compared to white patients (30.4%).</p

Comparison of patients undergoing switching versus augmentation of antipsychotic medications during treatment for schizophrenia

It is often difficult to determine whether a patient may best benefit by augmenting their current medication or switching them to another. This post-hoc analysis compares patients’ clinical and functional profiles at the time their antipsychotic medications were either switched or augmented. Adult outpatients receiving oral antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia were assessed during a 12-month international observational study. Clinical and functional measures were assessed at the time of first treatment switch/augmentation (0–14 days prior) and compared between Switched and Augmented patient groups. Due to low numbers of patients providing such data, interpretations are based on effect sizes. Data at the time of change were available for 87 patients: 53 Switched and 34 Augmented. Inadequate response was the primary reason for treatment change in both groups, whereas lack of adherence was more prevalent in the Switched group (26.4% vs 8.8%). Changes in clinical severity from study initiation to medication change were similar, as indicated by Clinical Global Impressions–Severity scores. However, physical and mental component scores of the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey improved in the Augmented group, but worsened in the Switched group. These findings suggest that the patient’s worsening or lack of meaningful improvement prompts clinicians to switch antipsychotic medications, whereas when patients show some improvement, clinicians may be more likely to try bolstering the improvements through augmentation. Current findings are consistent with physicians’ stated reasons for switching versus augmenting antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Confirmation of these findings requires further research

Patient Perspectives and Experiences of Preventive Treatments and Self-Injectable Devices for Migraine:A Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND: Although several self-injectable preventive treatments for migraine have become available, they are not yet widely used. Thus, understanding patients’ perceptions towards them is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to inform the design of a preference-elicitation instrument, which is being developed to quantify preventive treatment preferences of people with migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving nine in-person focus groups (three per country) in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Participants were adults (n = 47) with episodic or chronic migraine who were currently using or had used a prescription preventive treatment for migraine within the previous 5 years. During the focus groups, participants described their experiences of migraine and preventive treatments; handled and simulated self-injection using five different unbranded, fired demonstration auto-injectors and prefilled syringes; and ranked different aspects of preventive treatments by importance. Focus groups were analyzed with a focus on themes that would be feasible or meaningful to include in a subsequent preference-elicitation instrument. RESULTS: Reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks was consistently ranked as the most important aspect of preventive treatment. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with available daily oral preventive treatments for migraine they had previously used because they were ineffective or caused intolerable adverse events. Many participants were willing to self-inject a treatment that was effective and tolerable. When presented with devices for self-injecting a preventive treatment for migraine, participants generally preferred autoinjectors over prefilled syringes. Participants especially valued safety features such as the unlocking step and automated needle insertion, and audible and visual dose confirmation increased confidence in autoinjector use. Autoinjector needle protection mechanisms were also appreciated, especially by participants averse to needles, as the needles are not visible. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the fact that many people with migraine still lack access to a preventive treatment that is effective and tolerable. In addition to efficacy and safety considerations, treatment decisions may be guided by the mode of administration. In the case of self-injectable preventive treatments, key device characteristics affecting these decisions may be ease of use, comfort, and confidence in self-injection. Insights gained from this study were used to help develop a preliminary set of attributes and levels for a preference-elicitation instrument. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40271-021-00525-z

Intermittent percolation and the scale-free distribution of vegetation clusters

Understanding the causes and effects of spatial vegetation patterns is a fundamental problem in ecology, especially because these can be used as early predictors of catastrophic shifts such as desertification processes. Empirical studies of the vegetation cover in some areas such as drylands and semiarid regions have revealed the existence of vegetation patches of broadly diverse sizes. In particular, the probability distribution of patch sizes can be fitted by a power law, i.e. vegetation patches are approximately scale free up to some maximum size. Different explanatory mechanisms, such as plant–plant interactions and plant-water feedback loops have been proposed to rationalize the emergence of such scale-free patterns, yet a full understanding has not been reached. Using a simple model for vegetation dynamics, we show that environmental temporal variability—a well-recognized feature of semiarid environments—promotes in a robust way (i.e. for a wide range of parameter values) the emergence of vegetation patches with broadly distributed cluster sizes. Furthermore, this result is related to a percolation phenomenon that occurs in an intermittent or fluctuating way. The model also reveals that the power-law exponents fitting the tails of the probability distributions depend on the overall vegetation-cover density, in agreement with empirical observations. This supports the idea that environmental variability plays a key role in the formation of scale-free vegetation patterns. From a practical viewpoint, this may be of importance to predict the effects that changes in environmental conditions may have in real ecosystems. From a theoretical side, our study sheds new light on a novel type of percolation phenomena occurring under temporally-varying external conditions, that still needs further work to be fully characterized.Spanish Ministry and Agencia Estatal de investigacion (AEI) FIS2017-84256-PJunta de AndaluciaEuropean Union (EU) A-FQM-175-UGR18 SOMM17/6105/UG

Maintenance of response with atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: a post-hoc analysis of 5 double-blind, randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How long an antipsychotic is effective in maintaining response is important in choosing the correct treatment for people with schizophrenia. This post-hoc analysis describes maintenance of response over 24 or 28 weeks in people treated for schizophrenia with olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, ziprasidone, or aripiprazole.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a post-hoc analysis using data from 5 double-blind, randomized, comparative trials of 24 or 28 weeks duration in which olanzapine was compared to risperidone (1 study; N = 339), quetiapine (1 study; N = 346), ziprasidone (2 studies; N = 548 and 394) or aripiprazole (1 study; N = 566) for treatment of schizophrenia. For each study, time to loss of response in patients who met criteria for response at Week 8 and the proportion of patients who lost response following Week 8 were compared by treatment group. The number needed to treat (NNT) with olanzapine rather than comparator to avoid loss of one additional responder over 24 or 28 weeks of treatment was calculated for each study.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Time maintained in response was significantly longer (p < .05) for olanzapine compared to risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone. Olanzapine did not significantly differ from aripiprazole. The proportion of patients who lost response was significantly lower for olanzapine versus risperidone, quetiapine, and ziprasidone (p < .05). NNTs to avoid one additional patient with loss of response with olanzapine versus risperidone, quetiapine and ziprasidone were favourable, ranging from 5 to 9.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>During 24 and 28 weeks of treatment, the antipsychotics studied differed in the time that treated patients with schizophrenia remained in response and the proportion of patients who lost response. Olanzapine treatment resulted in a consistent and statistically significant advantage in maintenance of response compared to treatment with risperidone, quetiapine and ziprasidone; but not compared to treatment with aripiprazole.</p

Identification of early changes in specific symptoms that predict longer-term response to atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify a simple decision tree using early symptom change to predict response to atypical antipsychotic therapy in patients with (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, Text Revised) chronic schizophrenia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were pooled from moderately to severely ill patients (n = 1494) from 6 randomized, double-blind trials (N = 2543). Response was defined as a ≥30% reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Total score by Week 8 of treatment. Analyzed predictors were change in individual PANSS items at Weeks 1 and 2. A decision tree was constructed using classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify predictors that most effectively differentiated responders from non-responders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A 2-branch, 6-item decision tree was created, producing 3 distinct groups. First branch criterion was a 2-point score decrease in at least 2 of 5 PANSS positive items (Week 2). Second branch criterion was a 2-point score decrease in the PANSS excitement item (Week 2). "Likely responders" met the first branch criteria; "likely non-responders" did not meet first or second criterion; "not predictable" patients did not meet the first but did meet the second criterion. Using this approach, response to treatment could be predicted in most patients (92%) with high positive predictive value (79%) and high negative predictive value (75%). Predictive findings were confirmed through analysis of data from 2 independent trials.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Using a data-driven approach, we identified decision rules using early change in the scores of selected PANSS items to accurately predict longer-term treatment response or non-response to atypical antipsychotic therapy. This could lead to development of a simple quantitative evaluation tool to help guide early treatment decisions.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This is a retrospective, non-intervention study in which pooled results from 6 previously published reports were analyzed; thus, clinical trial registration is not required.</p

Early response predicts subsequent response to olanzapine long-acting injection in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of treatment for schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In patients with schizophrenia, early non-response to oral antipsychotic therapy robustly predicts subsequent non-response to continued treatment with the same medication. This study assessed whether early response predicted later response when using a long-acting injection (LAI) antipsychotic.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were taken from an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of olanzapine LAI in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia (n = 233). Early response was defined as ≥30% improvement from baseline to Week 4 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS_0-6) Total score. Subsequent response was defined as ≥40% baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS_0-6Total score. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and predictive accuracy were calculated. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared between Early Responders and Early Non-responders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Early response/non-response to olanzapine LAI predicted later response/non-response with high sensitivity (85%), specificity (72%), PPV (78%), NPV (80%), and overall accuracy (79%). Compared to Early Non-responders, Early Responders had significantly greater improvement in PANSS_0-6Total scores at all time points and greater baseline-to-endpoint improvement in PANSS subscale scores, Quality of Life Scale scores, and Short Form-36 Health Survey scores (all p ≤ .01). Among Early Non-responders, 20% demonstrated response by Week 8. Patients who lacked early improvement (at Week 4) in Negative Symptoms and Disorganized Thoughts were more likely to continue being non-responders at Week 8.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Among acutely ill patients with schizophrenia, early response predicted subsequent response to olanzapine LAI. Early Responders experienced significantly better clinical and functional outcomes than Early Non-responders. Findings are consistent with previous research on oral antipsychotics.</p> <p>Clinical Trials Registry</p> <p>F1D-MC-HGJZ: Comparison of Intramuscular Olanzapine Depot With Placebo in the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia <url>http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478?term=olanzapine+depot&rank=3</url></p> <p>Registry identifier - <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00088478">NCT00088478</a></p

Predictors and correlates for weight changes in patients co-treated with olanzapine and weight mitigating agents; a post-hoc analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study focuses on exploring the relationship between changes in appetite or eating behaviors and subsequent weight change for adult patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder treated with olanzapine and adjunctive potential weight mitigating pharmacotherapy. The aim is not to compare different weight mitigating agents, but to evaluate patients' characteristics and changes in their eating behaviors during treatment. Identification of patient subgroups with different degrees of susceptibility to the effect of weight mitigating agents during olanzapine treatment may aid clinicians in treatment decisions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were obtained from 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week clinical trials. Included were 158 patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m²who had received olanzapine treatment in combination with nizatidine (n = 68), sibutramine (n = 42), or amantadine (n = 48). Individual patients were analyzed for categorical weight loss ≥ 2 kg and weight gain ≥ 1 kg. Variables that were evaluated as potential predictors of weight outcomes included baseline patient characteristics, factors of the Eating Inventory, individual items of the Eating Behavior Assessment, and the Visual Analog Scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Predictors/correlates of weight loss ≥ 2 kg included: high baseline BMI, low baseline interest in food, and a decrease from baseline to endpoint in appetite, hunger, or cravings for carbohydrates. Reduced cognitive restraint, increase in hunger, and increased overeating were associated with a higher probability of weight gain ≥ 1 kg.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The association between weight gain and lack of cognitive restraint in the presence of increased appetite suggests potential benefit of psychoeducational counseling in conjunction with adjunctive pharmacotherapeutic agents in limiting weight gain during antipsychotic drug therapy.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This analysis was not a clinical trial and did not involve any medical intervention.</p