Making Better Dose Decisions: Using Exposure-Response Modeling to Integrate Efficacy Outcome of Two Phase IIb Clinical Trials of Ubrogepant for Migraine Treatment.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li CC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7214662 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Making Better Dose Decisions: Using Exposure-Response Modeling to Integrate Efficacy Outcome of Two Phase IIb Clinical Trials of Ubrogepant for Migraine Treatment.
Li Chi-Chung CC Voss Tiffini T Kowalski Ken K Yang Bei B Kleijn Huub Jan HJ Jones Christopher J CJ Bosch Rolien R Michelson David D DeAngelis Matthew M Xu Yang Y Xie Iris I Kothare Prajakti A PA
Clinical and translational science 20200116 3
Ubrogepant (MK-1602) is a novel, oral, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist in clinical development with positive phase III outcomes for acute treatment of migraine. This paper describes the population exposure-response (E-R) modeling and simulations, which were used to inform the phase III dose-selection rationale, based on ~ 800 participants pooled across two phase IIb randomized dose-finding clinical trials. The E-R model describes the placebo and ubrogepant treatment effects b ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionUbrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for acute treatment of migraine that can be used to treat breakthrough attacks in individuals taking preventive treatment for migraine. We evaluated the impact of preventive medication use on the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis was an analysis of pooled efficacy data from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials, in which efficacy of ubrogepant was assessed at 2 h after taking study medication for pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom (MBS), and pain relief. In addition, a long-term safety (LTS) extension trial was completed where safety was assessed on the basis of incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were compared between participants with or without prior (within 6 months) preventive medication use (anticonvulsants, beta blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA). For efficacy analyses, data were pooled across ACHIEVE trials for the 50 mg and placebo groups; for safety analyses, data for all dose groups (50 mg and 100 mg) in the LTS trial were pooled.ResultsPreventive treatments were used by 417 of 2247 (18.6%) participants analyzed in the ACHIEVE trials and by 143 of 813 (17.5%) participants in the LTS trial. Responder rates for all outcomes were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment within each dose group (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted across the different preventive medications. Rates and types of TEAEs were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported.ConclusionEfficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were similar between participants with or without prior or current use of concomitant preventive medication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), and NCT02873221 (long-term safety trial).
| S-EPMC8799553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUbrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant were demonstrated in two pivotal phase 3, single-attack, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II).MethodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the ACHIEVE trials to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg (the only dose evaluated in both trials) versus placebo across a large population of participants with migraine. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (including photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 h post dose. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 2 h post dose, sustained pain relief and pain freedom from 2 to 24 h, and absence of specific migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post dose.ResultsA total of 2240 eligible participants were randomized to placebo (n = 1122) or ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 1118) in the ACHIEVE trials. Pain freedom at 2 h was reported in 13.0% of participants in the pooled placebo group and 20.5% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34, 2.22; P < 0.001). Absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 h was reported by 27.6% in the pooled placebo group and by 38.7% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.37, 2.05; P < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) within 48 h after the initial or optional second dose were reported by 11.5 and 11.2% of participants in the pooled placebo and pooled ubrogepant 50 mg groups, respectively. The most common AE was nausea (1.8 and 1.9%, respectively). No serious AEs related to treatment or discontinuations due to AEs were reported.ConclusionThese results further support the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: ACHIEVE I: NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II: NCT02867709.
| S-EPMC8140011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated.MethodsACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis.ResultsParticipants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC90 for nearly 12 h.ConclusionsEvaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709).
| S-EPMC8047719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient-reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change.Background: Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co-primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient-reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient-relevant outcomes.Methods: ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-attack trials in adults (18-75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis.Results: In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant-treated participants vs placebo-treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001).Conclusions: A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient-centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.
| S-EPMC7155006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Social animals routinely are challenged to make consensus decisions about movement directions and routes. However, the underlying mechanisms facilitating such decision-making processes are still poorly known. A prominent question is how group members participate in group decisions. We addressed this question by examining how flocks of homing pigeons (Columba livia) decide their homing direction. We released newly formed flocks varying in size and determined the time taken to choose a homing direction (decision-making period) and the accuracy of that choice. We found that the decision-making period increases exponentially with flock size, which is consistent with a participatory decision-making process. We additionally found that there is no effect of flock size on the accuracy of the decisions made, which does not match with current theory for democratic choices of flight directions. Our combined results are better explained by a participatory choice of leaders that subsequently undertake the flock directional decisions. However, this decision-making model would only entirely fit with our results if leaders were chosen based on traits other than their navigational experience. Our study provides rare empirical evidence elucidating decision-making processes in freely moving groups of animals.
| S-EPMC4749242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of multi-level contribution margin accounting in cost accounting is to analyze the profitability of products and organizational entities with appropriate allocation of fixed costs and to provide relevant information for short-term, medium- and longer-term decisions. However, the conventional framework of multi-level contribution margin accounting does not usually incorporate a mathematical optimization method that simultaneously integrates variable and fixed costs to determine the best possible product mix within hierarchically structured organizations. This may be surprising in that operations research provides an optimization model in the form of the fixed-charge problem (FCP) that takes into account not only variable costs but also fixed costs of the activities to be planned. This paper links the two approaches by expanding the FCP to a multi-level fixed-charge problem (MLFCP), which maps the hierarchical decomposition of fixed costs in accordance with multi-level contribution margin accounting. In this way, previously hidden optimization potentials can be made visible within the framework of multi-level contribution margin accounting. Applying the linkage to a case study illustrates that the original assessment of profitability gained on the sole basis of a multi-level contribution margin calculation might turn out to be inappropriate or even inverted as soon as mathematical optimization is utilized: products, divisions, and other reference objects for fixed cost allocation, which at first glance seem to be profitable (or unprofitable) might be revealed as actually unprofitable (or profitable), when the multi-level contribution margin calculation is linked to the MLFCP. Furthermore, the proposed concept facilitates assessment of the costs of an increasing variant diversity, which also demonstrates that common rules on how to interpret a multi-level contribution margin calculation may have to be revised in some cases from the viewpoint of optimization. Finally, the impact of changes in the fixed cost structure and other parameters is tested via sensitivity analyses and stochastic optimization.
| S-EPMC7905367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Whether shared decision making (SDM) has been evaluated for end-of-life (EOL) decisions as compared to other forms of decision making has not been studied. Purpose: To summarize the evidence on SDM being associated with better outcomes for EOL decision making, as compared to other forms of decision making. Data Sources: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched through April 2014. Study Selection: Studies were selected that evaluated SDM, compared to any other decision making style, for an EOL decision. Data Extraction: Components of SDM tested, comparators to SDM, EOL decision being assessed, and outcomes measured. Data Synthesis: Seven studies met the inclusion criteria (three experimental and four observational studies). Results were analyzed using narrative synthesis. All three experimental studies compared SDM interventions to usual care. The four observational studies compared SDM to doctor-controlled decision making, or reported the correlation between level of SDM and outcomes. Components of SDM specified in each study differed widely, but the component most frequently included was presenting information on the risks/benefits of treatment choices (five of seven studies). The outcome most frequently measured was communication, although with different measurement tools. Other outcomes included decisional conflict, trust, satisfaction, and "quality of dying." Limitations: We could not analyze the strength of evidence for a given outcome due to heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and measurement tools. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence supporting SDM being associated with improved outcomes for EOL decisions as opposed to other forms of decision making. Future studies should describe which components of SDM are being tested, outline the comparator decision making style, and use validated tools to measure outcomes.
| S-EPMC6124838 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsData included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings.ResultsAcross 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant.ConclusionsThe efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words.
| S-EPMC9258126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesTo examine the efficacy of ubrogepant in the treatment of migraine with mild vs moderate or severe pain.MethodsThis was a phase 3, open-label, dose-blinded, 52-week extension trial. Adults with migraine were randomized 1:1:1 (usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg). Participants treated up to 8 migraine attacks of any pain intensity every 4 weeks. Efficacy outcomes (only collected for ubrogepant) included 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF), freedom from associated symptoms, and from disability. A generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and logit link function was used to assess the influence of baseline pain intensity on treatment outcomes in this post hoc analysis.ResultsData for 19,291 attacks from 808 participants were included. 2hPF rates were higher for attacks treated when pain was mild vs moderate or severe: ubrogepant 50 mg (47.1% vs 23.6%; odds ratio [95% CI] 2.89 [2.57-3.24]) and ubrogepant 100 mg (55.2% vs 26.1%; 3.50 [3.12-3.92]; p < 0.0001 both doses). Rates of freedom from photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea 2 hours after treatment were also significantly higher following the treatment of mild vs moderate or severe pain (p < 0.001 all symptoms, both doses). At 2 hours, the proportion of attacks with normal function was more than double for both doses of ubrogepant (p < 0.001). The most common adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection (∼11% both doses). Serious adverse events were reported by 2% in ubrogepant 50 mg and 3% in ubrogepant 100 mg.DiscussionRelative to treatment of attacks with moderate or severe pain, treatment with ubrogepant during mild pain resulted in significantly higher rates of freedom from pain, freedom from associated symptoms, and achieving normal function 2 hours after administration.Trial registration informationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02873221.Classification of evidenceThis trial provides Class III evidence that treatment of migraine with ubrogepant when pain is mild vs moderate or severe increases the likelihood of achieving pain freedom, absence of symptoms, and normal function within 2 hours postdose.
| S-EPMC9620813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionShared decision making is an interpersonal process whereby healthcare providers collaborate with and support patients in decision-making. Older adults receiving home care need support with decision-making. We will explore what older adults receiving home care and their caregivers need for making better health-related decisions.Methods and analysisThis two-phase sequential exploratory mixed methods study will be conducted in a pan-Canadian healthcare organisation, SE Health. First, we will create a participant advisory group to advise us throughout the research process. In phase 1 (qualitative), we will recruit a convenience sample of 15-30 older adults and caregivers receiving home care to participate in open-ended semi-structured interviews. Phase 1 participants will be invited to share what health-related decisions they face at home and what they need for making better decisions. In phase 2 (quantitative), interdisciplinary health and social care providers will be invited to answer a web-based survey to share their views on the decisional needs of older adults and their caregivers. The survey will include questions informed by findings from qualitative interviews in phase 1, and a workbook for assessing decisional needs based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Finally, qualitative and quantitative results will be triangulated (by methods, investigator, theory and source) to develop a comprehensive understanding of decision-making needs from the perspective of older adults, caregivers and health and social care providers. We will use the quality of mixed methods studies in health services research guidelines and the Checklist for Reporting the Results of Internet E-Surveys checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Southlake Regional Health Centre and Université Laval. This study will inform the design of decision support interventions. Further dissemination plans include summary briefs for study participants, tailored reports for home care decision makers and policy makers, and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberNCT04327830.
| S-EPMC7654109 | biostudies-literature