Dataset Information

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small-molecule, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double-blind, phase 3, single-attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants' historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan-insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve, respectively. Response rates on co-primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment-by-subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan-insufficient responders, and triptan-naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

SUBMITTER: Blumenfeld AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252782 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAs 5-HT1B receptor agonists, triptans produce vasoconstriction and have cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, has a low affinity for 5-HT1B receptors, does not cause vasoconstriction, and is free of cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients with and without at least one triptan contraindication.MethodsPatient subgroups, with and without triptan contraindications, were analyzed from pooled patient data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, and MONONOFU). Patients experiencing a single migraine attack of moderate or severe intensity were treated with lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN and MONONOFU only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo, and efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary.ResultsOf 5704 patients, 207 (3.6%) patients had at least one contraindication to triptans. Overall subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of lasmiditan on pain freedom, pain relief, freedom from most bothersome symptom, disability freedom, and Patient Global Impression of Change at 2 h post-dose did not differ in patient groups with and without triptan contraindications. These outcomes generally showed a similar benefit pattern for lasmiditan in both subgroups, with all results being statistically significant in patients without contraindications, and pain relief being statistically significant in patients with contraindications. The safety and tolerability profiles of patients with triptan versus without triptan contraindications were similar, including dizziness in 18.3 to 22.8% and somnolence in 7.9 to 9.9% of patients at the highest dose of lasmiditan.ConclusionsIn pooled analyses from four trials, patients with and without triptan contraindications did not differ in their patterns of lasmiditan efficacy. Lasmiditan may be a treatment option in patients with contraindications to triptans.Trial registration numbersSAMURAI, NCT:02439320; SPARTAN, NCT:02605174; CENTURION, NCT:03670810; and MONONOFU, NCT:03962738.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction and the safety and tolerability when ubrogepant and sumatriptan are coadministered in a Phase 1 study in healthy participants, and to inform the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant alone and in combination with triptans in Phase 3 trials in participants with migraine.BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide is a potent vasodilatory neurotransmitter believed to play a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Ubrogepant (UBRELVY™) is a potent and selective antagonist of the human calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan is a serotonin receptor agonist and the most commonly used triptan for the acute treatment of migraine. Ubrogepant could be prescribed with triptans.DesignThe Phase 1 study was a single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover, single-dose, pharmacokinetic interaction study, where participants received each of 3 oral treatments with a 7-day washout period between treatments: single dose of ubrogepant 100 mg, single dose of sumatriptan 100 mg, and ubrogepant 100 mg plus sumatriptan 100 mg. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a model-independent approach. The ACHIEVE I and II trials were 2 multicenter, single-attack, randomized, Phase 3 trials in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura. Participants had the option to take a second dose of study medication or rescue medication to treat a nonresponding migraine or a migraine recurrence from 2 to 48 hours after the initial dose of study medication. Rescue medication options included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, anti-emetics, or triptans. Treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated up to 30 days after the last dose in the Phase 1 and Phase 3 studies.ResultsUbrogepant median time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (3 hours [range: 1-5 hours] vs 1.5 hours [range: 1-4 hours]), mean maximum plasma concentration was reduced by 24% (coefficient of variation: 37.4%) when ubrogepant was coadministered with sumatriptan (n = 29) compared with ubrogepant administered alone (N = 30). No significant effect was observed on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of ubrogepant. Sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration showed no significant change when sumatriptan was coadministered with ubrogepant (n = 29), but the sumatriptan time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (1 hour [range: 0.5-5 hours] vs 3 hours [range: 0.5-6 hours]. No treatment-emergent adverse events were reported with the coadministration of ubrogepant 100 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg in the Phase 1 study. The pooled safety data from ACHIEVE trials (N = 1938) showed similar rates of treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events between participants who took ubrogepant alone and participants who took ubrogepant and a triptan as a rescue medication (14.9% [53/355] vs 12.8% [5/39] in the ubrogepant 100 mg treatment group, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough there were slight alterations in ubrogepant pharmacokinetic parameters when coadministered with sumatriptan, such changes are expected to have minimal clinical relevance, especially because no changes were seen in sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration when coadministered with ubrogepant. Coadministration of ubrogepant with sumatriptan was well tolerated in healthy participants in the Phase 1 study, and coadministration of ubrogepant with triptans was well tolerated in participants with migraine in the Phase 3 trials. No new safety concerns for ubrogepant were identified across all trials.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) by prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) use.MethodsData from a placebo-controlled, double-blind study of patients with active AS were analyzed. Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo to week 16; all received open-label tofacitinib 5 mg BID to week 48 and were stratified by prior treatment (bDMARD-naive or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi]-inadequate responder [IR], including bDMARD-experienced [non-IR]). Disease activity/safety were assessed throughout.ResultsOf 269 patients, 207 (77%) were bDMARD-naive; 62 (23%) were in the TNFi-IR subgroup. TNFi-IR patients had higher baseline BMI (28.0 vs. 26.1 kg/m2 ), longer symptom duration (14.4 vs. 13.2 years), and lower concomitant conventional synthetic DMARD use (14.5% vs. 30.9%) than bDMARD-naive patients. At week 16, for most outcomes, tofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo for both subgroups and was sustained to week 48. At week 16, tofacitinib versus placebo differences were similar between bDMARD-naive and TNFi-IR patients (Assessment in Spondyloarthritis international Society 40 treatment difference [95% confidence interval]: 30.8% [19.1%-42.6%] vs. 19.4% [1.7%-37.0%]). Adverse event (AE) proportions were similar between tofacitinib-treated bDMARD-naive/TNFi-IR patients (77.5%/77.4%) at week 48 with no deaths. A numerically higher proportion of tofacitinib-treated TNFi-IR versus bDMARD-naive patients discontinued study drug (12.9% vs. 3.9%) or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued due to AEs (19.4% vs. 11.8%).ConclusionTofacitinib efficacy exceeded placebo at week 16 for bDMARD-naive/TNFi-IR patients and was sustained to week 48. The absolute magnitude of responses was generally greater in bDMARD-naive patients versus TNFi-IR patients. More TNFi-IR versus bDMARD-naive patients discontinued or dose reduced/temporarily discontinued tofacitinib due to AEs. Small sample size and sample size differences between subgroups limited the interpretation.

Project description:BackgroundThe duration of prior hormonal treatment can predict responses to subsequent therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).ObjectiveTo determine if prior endocrine therapy duration is an indicator of abiraterone acetate (AA) sensitivity.Design, setting, and participantsPost-hoc exploratory analysis of randomised phase 3 studies examining post-docetaxel (COU-AA-301) or chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC (COU-AA-302) patients receiving AA. The treatment effect on overall survival (OS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response analysed by quartile duration of prior gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) or androgen receptor (AR) antagonist.InterventionPatients were randomised to AA (1000mg, orally once daily) plus prednisone (5mg, orally twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. Prior endocrine therapy was GnRHa (COU-AA-301, n=1127 [94%]; COU-AA-302, n=1057 [97%], 45.1 mo or 36.7 mo median duration, respectively) and/or orchiectomy (COU-AA-301, n=78 [7%] COU-AA-302, n=44 [4%]); castrated patients received prior AR antagonists (COU-AA-301, n=1015 [85%]; COU-AA-302, n=1078 [99%], 15.7 mo or 16.1 mo median duration, respectively).Outcome measurements and statistical analysisCox model was used to obtain hazard ratio and associated 95% confidence interval with statistical inference by log rank statistic.Results and limitationsClinical benefit with AA was observed for OS, rPFS, and PSA response for nearly all quartiles with GnRHa or AR antagonists in both COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302. In COU-AA-301, patients with a longer duration of prior endocrine therapy tended to have greater AA OS, rPFS, and PSA response benefit, with lead-time chemotherapy bias potentially impacting COU-AA-301 results. Time to castration resistance was not captured. This analysis is limited as a post-hoc exploratory analysis.ConclusionsIn the COU-AA-301 and COU-AA-302 studies, AA produced clinical benefits regardless of prior endocrine therapy duration in patients with mCRPC.Patient summaryMetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients derived clinical benefits with abiraterone acetate regardless of prior endocrine therapy duration.

Project description:ObjectiveHER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication.MethodsPost hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment.ResultsPatients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50-100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p < 0.001). In the last 3 months, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving erenumab (60.3%) achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (43.3%; p < 0.001). Patients receiving erenumab demonstrated significantly greater reductions in MMD during the last 3 months from baseline versus those receiving topiramate (- 6.13 vs - 4.90; 95% CI: - 1.87 to - 0.61; p < 0.001).ConclusionsThis post hoc analysis demonstrated significantly superior efficacy of erenumab versus topiramate in achieving a ≥50% reduction in MMD with an early onset of efficacy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539 .

Project description:Antimuscarinic agents are currently the predominant treatment option for the clinical management of the symptoms of overactive bladder (OAB). However, low rates of persistence with these agents highlight the need for novel, effective and better-tolerated oral pharmacological agents. Mirabegron is a ?3-adrenoceptor agonist developed for the treatment of OAB, with a mechanism of action distinct from that of antimuscarinics. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled Phase 3 trial conducted in Europe and Australia (NCT00689104), mirabegron 50 mg and 100 mg resulted in statistically significant reductions from baseline to final visit, compared with placebo, in the co-primary end points - mean number of incontinence episodes/24 h and mean number of micturitions/24 h. We conducted a post hoc, subgroup analysis of this study in order to evaluate the efficacy of mirabegron in treatment-naïve patients and patients who had discontinued prior antimuscarinic therapy because of insufficient efficacy or poor tolerability.Patients were randomized to placebo, mirabegron 50 or 100 mg, or tolterodine extended release (ER) 4 mg orally, once-daily, for 12 weeks. For the post hoc analysis, the primary patient population was divided into the following subgroups: (1) patients who had not received any prior antimuscarinic OAB medication (treatment-naïve) and (2) patients who had received prior antimuscarinic OAB medication. The latter subgroup was further subdivided into patients who discontinued due to: (3) insufficient efficacy or (4) poor tolerability. Analysis of the co-primary efficacy endpoints by subgroup was performed using analysis of covariance with treatment group, subgroup, sex, geographical region, and subgroup-by-treatment interaction as fixed factors; and baseline value as a covariate.Mirabegron, 50 mg and 100 mg once-daily, demonstrated similar improvements in the frequency of incontinence episodes and micturitions in OAB patients who were antimuscarinic-naïve and who had discontinued prior antimuscarinic therapy. While mirabegron demonstrated improvements in incontinence and micturition frequency in patients who had discontinued prior antimuscarinic therapy due to insufficient efficacy, the response to tolterodine was similar to that of placebo.In this post hoc subgroup analysis, mirabegron provided treatment benefits in OAB patients who were antimuscarinic treatment-naïve and in patients who had received prior antimuscarinic treatment.