Dataset Information

Making Better Dose Decisions: Using Exposure-Response Modeling to Integrate Efficacy Outcome of Two Phase IIb Clinical Trials of Ubrogepant for Migraine Treatment.

ABSTRACT: 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 based on migraine pain end points (2-hour pain relief and 2-hour pain freedom) at various dose levels. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate various assumptions of placebo response in light of the high placebo response observed in one phase II trial. A population pharmacokinetic model describing the effect of formulations was included in the E-R simulation framework to assess potential dose implications of a formulation switch from phase II to phase III. Model-based simulations predict that a dose of 25 mg or higher is likely to achieve significantly better efficacy than placebo with desirable efficacy levels. The understanding of E-R helped support the dose selection for the phase III clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Li CC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7214662 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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]

PMID: 31758661

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Shared 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 ANALYSIS:This 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 DISSEMINATION:Ethics 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 NUMBER:NCT04327830.

Dataset Information

Making Better Dose Decisions: Using Exposure-Response Modeling to Integrate Efficacy Outcome of Two Phase IIb Clinical Trials of Ubrogepant for Migraine Treatment.

Publications

Making Better Dose Decisions: Using Exposure-Response Modeling to Integrate Efficacy Outcome of Two Phase IIb Clinical Trials of Ubrogepant for Migraine Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets