Cargando…

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

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 prema...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nichols, Russell, Doty, Erin, Sacco, Sara, Ruff, Dustin, Pearlman, Eric, Aurora, Sheena K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30462830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/head.13443
_version_ 1783429130467934208
author Nichols, Russell
Doty, Erin
Sacco, Sara
Ruff, Dustin
Pearlman, Eric
Aurora, Sheena K.
author_facet Nichols, Russell
Doty, Erin
Sacco, Sara
Ruff, Dustin
Pearlman, Eric
Aurora, Sheena K.
author_sort Nichols, Russell
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6587751
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65877512019-07-02 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 Nichols, Russell Doty, Erin Sacco, Sara Ruff, Dustin Pearlman, Eric Aurora, Sheena K. Headache Research Submissions 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. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-11-21 2019-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6587751/ /pubmed/30462830 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/head.13443 Text en © 2018 Eli Lilly and Company. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Headache Society This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research Submissions
Nichols, Russell
Doty, Erin
Sacco, Sara
Ruff, Dustin
Pearlman, Eric
Aurora, Sheena K.
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
title 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
title_full 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
title_fullStr 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
title_full_unstemmed 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
title_short 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
title_sort 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
topic Research Submissions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6587751/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30462830
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/head.13443
work_keys_str_mv AT nicholsrussell analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies
AT dotyerin analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies
AT saccosara analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies
AT ruffdustin analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies
AT pearlmaneric analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies
AT aurorasheenak analysisofinitialnonresponderstogalcanezumabinpatientswithepisodicorchronicmigraineresultsfromtheevolve1evolve2andregainrandomizeddoubleblindplacebocontrolledstudies