Different doses of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with migraine and cluster headache: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yang Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7014619 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Different doses of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with migraine and cluster headache: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Yang Yanbo Y Wang Zilan Z Gao Bixi B Xuan He H Zhu Yun Y Chen Zhouqing Z Wang Zhong Z
The journal of headache and pain 20200211 1
<h4>Background</h4>Galcanezumab is a novel monoclonal antibody that target to calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). It has been tested for the preventive treatment of migraine and episodic cluster headache by multiple randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and have been found to reduce headache frequency.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched PubMed and Embase on Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from the earliest date to August 1, 2019. Relative risk (RR) and weighted me ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceGalcanezumab (LY2951742), a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is one of a novel class of new medicines for migraine prevention.ObjectiveTo assess whether at least 1 dose of galcanezumab was superior to placebo for episodic migraine prevention.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial was conducted in the United States (July 7, 2014, to August 19, 2015) in clinics of 37 licensed physicians with a specialty including, but not limited to, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, and primary care. Subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, 5, 50, 120, or 300 mg, or placebo were given monthly during the 3-month treatment period. A total of 936 patients were assessed; 526 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria and 410 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or galcanezumab. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study drug.InterventionsShort-term migraine treatments were allowed as needed except for opioids or barbiturates.Main outcomes and measuresTo determine if at least 1 of the 4 doses of galcanezumab tested was superior to placebo for migraine prevention measured by the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days 9 weeks to 12 weeks after randomization.ResultsOf the 936 patients assessed, 410 met entry criteria (aged 18-65 years with 4-14 migraine headache days per month and migraine onset prior to age 50 years) and were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab. For the primary end point, galcanezumab, 120 mg, significantly reduced migraine headache days compared with placebo (99.6% posterior probability -4.8 days; 90% BCI, -5.4 to -4.2 days vs 95% superiority threshold [Bayesian analysis] -3.7 days; 90% BCI, -4.1 to -3.2 days). Adverse events reported by 5% or more of patients in at least 1 galcanezumab dose group and more frequently than placebo included injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, dysmenorrhea, and nausea.Conclusions and relevanceMonthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, both 120 mg and 300 mg, demonstrated efficacy (repeated-measures analysis) for the preventive treatment of migraine and support further development in larger phase 3 studies. All dosages were safe and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163993.
| S-EPMC5838630 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction Migraine is a frequent neurological condition manifested by several episodes of headache. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been shown to play a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds CGRP and inhibits its action, without affecting the CGRP receptor. The aim of this study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of galcanezumab (120 mg or 240 mg) for the management of migraine. Methods We screened four databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and Cochrane Central) from inception to October 10, 2020. Studies meeting the following criteria were included: (i) Patients: individuals with migraine, (ii) Intervention: galcanezumab at a dose of 120 mg or 240 mg, (iii) Comparator: placebo, (iv) Outcomes: prespecified efficacy and safety outcomes, and (v) Study design: randomized placebo-controlled trials. Efficacy outcomes included change in migraine headache days (MHDs), change in MHDs with acute medication use, patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) score, migraine-specific quality of life role function-restrictive domain (MSQ RF-R) score, and migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score. Safety outcomes included frequency of injection-site pain, nasopharyngitis, and upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Moreover, we used the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool to assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Review Manager Software, version 5.4.1, was used for statistical analysis. Mean difference and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval were used to analyze continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We used the fixed-effects and random-effects models to analyze homogeneous and heterogeneous data, respectively. Results A total of six studies comprising 4,023 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. When compared to placebo, both doses of galcanezumab were highly effective in decreasing MHDs (p<0.001), reducing MHDs with acute medication use (p<0.001), and improving the PGI-S score (p<0.001). On the other hand, MSQ RF-R and MIDAS scores were significantly enhanced only in the 240-mg dose group (p<0.001). With regard to side effects, the rates of injection-site pain and nasopharyngitis did not substantially differ between galcanezumab (inclusive of 120 mg and 240 mg) and placebo groups. Nonetheless, when compared to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, but not galcanezumab 240 mg, substantially correlated with a higher rate of URTI. Conclusions Galcanezumab is clinically safe and efficient for the management of migraine, and the use of a higher dose increases its efficacy. Future research directions should be geared toward determining the optimal dose of galcanezumab in the management of patients with migraine. Moreover, head-to-head comparative studies between galcanezumab and other related anti-CGRP receptor monoclonal antibodies are warranted.
| S-EPMC7755678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A new treatment option for cluster headache (CH) prevention is needed. Monoclonal antibodies (mABs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligands are used as a preventative treatment for migraine. Considering the CGRP's role in the CH attack's ignition and upkeep, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have been evaluated for CH preventative treatment. However, only high-dose (300 mg) galcanezumab has been approved for episodic CH prevention. We herein report three cases of migraine and comorbid CH with previous failures of preventive treatments. Two cases were treated with fremanezumab and one with non-high-dose galcanezumab. All three cases showed good results, not only for migraine, but also for CH attacks. This report suggests the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention. Our cases differed from cases in the phase 3 trials of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention in two ways: first, our patients had both migraine and comorbid CH, and second, we used a combination of CGRP-mABs with preventative drugs, such as verapamil and/or prednisolone, to treat CH. Future accumulation of real-world data may prove the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for CH prevention.
| S-EPMC10057600 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cluster headache and migraine are regarded as distinct primary headaches. While cluster headache and migraine differ in multiple aspects such as gender-related and headache specific features (e.g., attack duration and frequency), both show clinical similarities in trigger factors (e.g., alcohol) and treatment response (e.g., triptans). Here, we review the similarities and differences in anatomy and pathophysiology that underlie cluster headache and migraine, discuss whether cluster headache and migraine should indeed be considered as two distinct primary headaches, and propose recommendations for future studies. Video recording of the debate held at the 1st International Conference on Advances in Migraine Sciences (ICAMS 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark) is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUimmnDVTTE .
| S-EPMC9706960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Non-invasive neuromodulation therapies for migraine and cluster headache are a practical and safe alternative to pharmacologics. Comparisons of these therapies are difficult because of the heterogeneity in study designs. In this systematic review of clinical trials, the scientific rigour and clinical relevance of the available data were assessed to inform clinical decisions about non-invasive neuromodulation. PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant clinical studies of non-invasive neuromodulation devices for migraine and cluster headache (1 January 1990 to 31 January 2018), and 71 were identified. This analysis compared study designs using recommendations of the International Headache Society for pharmacological clinical trials, the only available guidelines for migraine and cluster headache. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), single-transcranial magnetic stimulation and external trigeminal nerve stimulation (all with regulatory clearance) were well studied compared with the other devices, for which studies frequently lacked proper blinding, sham controls and sufficient population sizes. nVNS studies demonstrated the most consistent adherence to available guidelines. Studies of all neuromodulation devices should strive to achieve the same high level of scientific rigour to allow for proper comparison across devices. Device-specific guidelines for migraine and cluster headache will be soon available, but adherence to current guidelines for pharmacological trials will remain a key consideration for investigators and clinicians.
| S-EPMC6585264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories.BackgroundMigraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients.MethodsAnalyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire.ResultsAmong patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg).ConclusionsBecause migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.
| S-EPMC7756324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although clinically distinguishable, migraine and cluster headache share prominent features such as unilateral pain, common pharmacological triggers such glyceryl trinitrate, histamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and response to triptans and neuromodulation. Recent data also suggest efficacy of anti CGRP monoclonal antibodies in both migraine and cluster headache. While exact mechanisms behind both disorders remain to be fully understood, the trigeminovascular system represents one possible common pathophysiological pathway and network of both disorders. Here, we review past and current literature shedding light on similarities and differences in phenotype, heritability, pathophysiology, imaging findings and treatment options of migraine and cluster headache. A continued focus on their shared pathophysiological pathways may be important in paving future treatment avenues that could benefit both migraine and cluster headache patients.
| S-EPMC6755613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo report efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in adults with chronic cluster headache.BackgroundGalcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its biological activity.MethodsThis study comprised a prospective baseline period, a 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, and a 52-week open-label period. Up to six protocol-specified concomitant preventive medications were allowed if patients were on a stable dose for 2 months prior to the prospective baseline period. Patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab (300 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in weekly attack frequency with galcanezumab compared to placebo. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50% response rate and percentage of patients meeting sustained response. Results from the double-blind treatment period are reported.ResultsA total of 237 patients were randomized and treated (120 placebo; 117 galcanezumab). At baseline, the mean age was 45 years and 63% were using ≥1 preventive drug. The primary endpoint was not met; mean change in weekly attack frequency was -4.6 placebo versus -5.4 galcanezumab (p = 0.334). Key secondary endpoints also were not met. Injection site-related treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the galcanezumab than the placebo group, with significantly more injection site erythema.ConclusionTreatment with galcanezumab 300 mg did not achieve its primary and key secondary endpoints. This study underscores the potential distinct biology of cCH as well as the significant unmet need for safe, effective, and well-tolerated preventive treatment. The safety profile of galcanezumab in cCH is consistent with that observed in trials of episodic CH and migraine.Trial registrationNCT02438826; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02438826.
| S-EPMC7787002 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to assess the tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache (CH) with up to 15 months of treatment.BackgroundChronic CH is a highly debilitating disease with a substantial and unmet medical need.MethodsPatients were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab (300 mg) monthly for 12 weeks, followed by an optional 52-week open-label extension and 16-week posttreatment follow-up (washout). This is a secondary analysis and long-term follow-up of a previously conducted clinical trial. The safety analysis included patients who received galcanezumab at any time during the study. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and suicidality ratings.ResultsA total of 233 patients received at least one galcanezumab dose. The mean exposure was 341 days. Galcanezumab-treated patients were mostly male (n = 169/233; 72.5%) with a mean age of 44.9 (±10.9) years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 185 patients (n = 185/233; 79.4%), 23 patients (n = 23/233; 9.9%) reported serious adverse events (SAEs), and 18 patients (n = 18/233; 7.7%) discontinued due to AEs. The SAE CH was reported by three patients. The most common TEAEs (>10%) were nasopharyngitis (n = 41/233; 17.6%) and injection site pain (n = 33/233; 14.2%). 27.5% of patients (n = 64/233) had TEAEs related to injection sites. Likely hypersensitivity events, including injection site rash, injection site urticaria, and injection site hypersensitivity were reported (n = 14/233; 6.0%). There were past histories of suicidal ideation (n = 55/237; 23.2%) and suicidal behavior (n = 9/236; 3.8%). During the study, 15 patients (n = 15/230; 6.5%), seven with previous history, reported suicidal ideation. One patient had a nonfatal suicide attempt during the open-label extension and an aborted attempt during the washout. There were no new safety findings compared with the placebo-controlled treatment period in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs.ConclusionsGalcanezumab 300 mg monthly had a favorable tolerability and safety profile in patients with chronic CH with up to 15 months of treatment.
| S-EPMC9299588 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.MethodsA phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of LY2951742 in patients with chronic migraine (Evaluation of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine [REGAIN]) was a phase 3 study with a 3-month double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment phase and a 9-month open-label extension. Eligible patients 18 to 65 years of age with chronic migraine were randomized 2:1:1 to monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 558), galcanezumab 120 mg (with a 240-mg loading dose, n = 278), or galcanezumab 240 mg (n = 277). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase.ResultsMean number of monthly MHDs at baseline was 19.4 for the total sample. Both galcanezumab dose groups demonstrated greater overall mean reduction in the number of monthly MHDs compared to placebo (placebo -2.7, galcanezumab 120 mg -4.8, galcanezumab 240 mg -4.6) (p < 0.001 for each dose compared to placebo). There were no clinically meaningful differences between galcanezumab doses and placebo on any safety or tolerability outcome except for a higher incidence of treatment-emergent injection-site reaction (p < 0.01), injection-site erythema (p < 0.001), injection-site pruritus (p < 0.01), and sinusitis (p < 0.05) in the galcanezumab 240-mg group relative to placebo.ConclusionsBoth doses of galcanezumab were superior to placebo in reducing the number of monthly MHDs. Galcanezumab appears efficacious, safe, and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02614261.Classification of evidenceThis interventional study provides Class I evidence that galcanezumab is superior to placebo in the reduction of the number of monthly MHDs.
| S-EPMC6329331 | biostudies-literature