Dataset Information

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of the Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of Celecoxib Oral Solution (ELYXYB) in Acute Treatment of Episodic Migraine with or without Aura.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Safe, effective, oral therapies are needed for acute treatment of migraine. This clinical trial assessed the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of celecoxib oral solution (ELYXYB) in a single migraine attack associated with moderate-to-severe pain.

Methods

This was a phase III, randomized (1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, conducted at 41 US centers from December 2016 to October 2017. Adults with episodic migraine (with or without aura) for ≥1 year were treated with a single 4.8 mL dose of 120-mg celecoxib oral solution or placebo. Co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients who were pain-free and free from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours post-dose. The MBS was identified at screening from among nausea, photophobia, or phonophobia.

Results

Six hundred thirty-one patients were randomized (celecoxib oral solution, n=316; placebo, n=315; mean age 41 years, range 18-75; 84.3% female). One study site met prespecified outlier criteria (defined as a treatment effect estimate that was at least twice as large as all other sites) and was excluded from efficacy analyses. This site had a mean 2-hour pain freedom placebo response rate of 75% vs a combined mean of 23.5% for all other sites. In subsequent analysis, 2-hour post-dose pain freedom response rates were significantly higher in the celecoxib oral solution group vs placebo (32.8%, [27.2%, 38.8%]) vs 23.5%, [18.5%, 29.2%]; P=0.020). For 2-hour post-dose MBS freedom, response rates were significantly higher in the celecoxib oral solution group vs placebo (58.1% [51.4%, 64.5%] vs 43.9% [37.2%, 50.7%]; P=0.003). A total of 10.7% (31/289) of patients treated with celecoxib oral solution and 9.9% (28/283) of placebo-treated patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 7.3% (21/289) and 7.4% (21/283) of celecoxib oral solution and placebo patients, respectively; the most common were nausea (celecoxib oral solution: 1.4% [4/289] vs placebo: 1.8% [5/283]) and dysgeusia (celecoxib oral solution: 1.7% [5/289] vs placebo: 1.1% [3/283]). No serious TEAEs, deaths, or drug-related TEAEs leading to withdrawal were reported.

Conclusion

Celecoxib oral solution is a safe, effective COX-2-selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug for the treatment of acute migraine. In this analysis, celecoxib oral solution was significantly more effective than placebo and was also associated with a low rate of gastric TEAEs. Celecoxib oral solution may provide a convenient, alternate option to currently available treatments.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03009019; registered January 4, 2017; retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03009019.

SUBMITTER: Lipton RB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8382884 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 120 mg DFN-15 vs placebo for the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND:Certain nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are guideline-recommended therapies for the acute treatment of migraine, but patients who use them may have issues with gastrointestinal tolerability. Celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, produces analgesia similar to nonselective NSAIDs. DFN-15 is an oral, ready-made liquid solution of celecoxib being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, efficacy, tolerability, and safety study in adults with migraine was conducted. Subjects treated a single migraine attack with 120 mg DFN-15 or placebo as soon as possible after the onset of pain of moderate to severe intensity. The 2 independent coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of subjects with freedom from pain and the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours postdose. A second double-blind treatment period followed the first, but did not contribute to the primary outcomes and will be reported elsewhere. RESULTS:There were 622 subjects randomized (1:1) to double-blind treatment with either 120 mg DFN-15 or placebo, and 567 (91.2%) treated a migraine with study drug (n = 285 DFN-15; n = 282 placebo). Groups were balanced in demographic characteristics; the mean age was 40, and most subjects were female (87% [494/567]). At 2 hours postdose, DFN-15 was significantly superior to placebo for pain freedom (35.6% [98/275] vs 21.7% [57/263], P < .001), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.00 (1.36, 2.94) and for freedom from the MBS (57.8% [134/232] vs 44.8% [104/232], P = .007), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 1.68 (1.17, 2.43). A total of 13.3% (38/285) of DFN-15-treated subjects and 8.9% (25/282) of placebo-treated subjects reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Study drug-related TEAEs were reported by 9.1% (26/285) of DFN-15 subjects and 6.0% (17/282) of placebo subjects, the most common of which were dysgeusia (4.2% [12/285] vs 1.4% [4/282]) and nausea (3.2% [9/285] vs 1.8% [5/282]). No subjects treated with DFN-15 reported TEAEs that were severe or led to withdrawal, and no serious TEAEs or deaths were reported in the study. CONCLUSIONS:DFN-15 was significantly more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine, with a generally favorable tolerability and safety profile.

Project description:It is unclear whether patients diagnosed according to International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria for migraine with aura (MA) and migraine without aura (MO) experience distinct disorders or whether their migraine subtypes are genetically related.Using a novel gene-based (statistical) approach, we aimed to identify individual genes and pathways associated both with MA and MO.Gene-based tests were performed using genome-wide association summary statistic results from the most recent International Headache Genetics Consortium study comparing 4505 MA cases with 34,813 controls and 4038 MO cases with 40,294 controls. After accounting for non-independence of gene-based test results, we examined the significance of the proportion of shared genes associated with MA and MO.We found a significant overlap in genes associated with MA and MO. Of the total 1514 genes with a nominally significant gene-based p value (pgene-based???0.05) in the MA subgroup, 107 also produced pgene-based???0.05 in the MO subgroup. The proportion of overlapping genes is almost double the empirically derived null expectation, producing significant evidence of gene-based overlap (pleiotropy) (pbinomial-test = 1.5?×?10(-4)). Combining results across MA and MO, six genes produced genome-wide significant gene-based p values. Four of these genes (TRPM8, UFL1, FHL5 and LRP1) were located in close proximity to previously reported genome-wide significant SNPs for migraine, while two genes, TARBP2 and NPFF separated by just 259?bp on chromosome 12q13.13, represent a novel risk locus. The genes overlapping in both migraine types were enriched for functions related to inflammation, the cardiovascular system and connective tissue.Our results provide novel insight into the likely genes and biological mechanisms that underlie both MA and MO, and when combined with previous data, highlight the neuropeptide FF-amide peptide encoding gene (NPFF) as a novel candidate risk gene for both types of migraine.

Project description:BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used for migraine, but gastrointestinal tolerability limits use. We previously reported results from the first treatment period of this 2-period, randomized, controlled study comparing DFN-15-an oral, ready-made liquid solution of a selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib-with placebo for the acute treatment of a moderate-severe migraine attack. Herein, we report the effects of treatment for the second treatment period.MethodsIn the first treatment period of this trial, adults with migraine were randomized to double-blind trial treatment of attacks of moderate or severe pain with DFN-15,120 mg or placebo. For the second treatment period, reported herein, participants were re-randomized to treat an attack of any baseline pain intensity (mild, moderate, or severe). Co-primary efficacy endpoints specified for the first attack were not specified for the second attack.ResultsOf the 531 patients who completed the first treatment period, 491 (n = 243 DFN-15; n = 248 placebo; 87% female, mean age 41 years) were re-randomized into the second double-blind treatment period. Baseline pain intensity was mild in 17.2% (85/493) of patients, moderate in 58.4% (288/493) of patients, and severe in 22.9% (113/493) of patients. At 2 hours post-dose, DFN-15 was superior to placebo for freedom from pain (46.2% [110/238] vs 31.1% [76/244], p ≤ 0.001) and the most bothersome symptom (63.4% [121/191] vs 50.0% [98/196], p = 0.010). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 7.1% (35/493) of patients (DFN-15: 6.1% [15/244]; placebo 8.0% [20/249]). Study drug-related TEAEs occurred in 5.1% (25/493) of patients (DFN-15: 4.5% [11/244]; placebo 5.6% [14/249]); nausea (1% [5/493]) and dysgeusia (0.8% [4/493]) were most common. No serious TEAEs, severe TEAEs, or TEAEs leading to study drug termination were reported.ConclusionsDFN-15 was superior to placebo for pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom when patients treat a migraine attack of any baseline pain intensity. Rates of TEAEs did not differ between treatment groups.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of manual acupuncture as prophylactic treatment for acupuncture naive patients with episodic migraine without aura.DesignMulticentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial with blinded participants, outcome assessment, and statistician.SettingSeven hospitals in China, 5 June 2016 to 15 November 2018.Participants150 acupuncture naive patients with episodic migraine without aura.Interventions20 sessions of manual acupuncture at true acupuncture points plus usual care, 20 sessions of non-penetrating sham acupuncture at heterosegmental non-acupuncture points plus usual care, or usual care alone over 8 weeks.Main outcome measuresChange in migraine days and migraine attacks per four weeks during weeks 1-20 after randomisation compared with baseline (four weeks before randomisation).ResultsAmong 150 randomised patients (mean age 36.5 (SD 11.4) years; 123 (82%) women), 147 were included in the full analysis set. Compared with sham acupuncture, manual acupuncture resulted in a significantly greater reduction in migraine days at weeks 13 to 20 and a significantly greater reduction in migraine attacks at weeks 17 to 20. The reduction in mean number of migraine days was 3.5 (SD 2.5) for manual versus 2.4 (3.4) for sham (adjusted difference -1.4, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to -0.3; P=0.005) at weeks 13 to 16 and 3.9 (3.0) for manual versus 2.2 (3.2) for sham (adjusted difference -2.1, -2.9 to -1.2; P<0.001) at weeks 17 to 20. At weeks 17 to 20, the reduction in mean number of attacks was 2.3 (1.7) for manual versus 1.6 (2.5) for sham (adjusted difference -1.0, -1.5 to -0.5; P<0.001). No severe adverse events were reported. No significant difference was seen in the proportion of patients perceiving needle penetration between manual acupuncture and sham acupuncture (79% v 75%; P=0.891).ConclusionsTwenty sessions of manual acupuncture was superior to sham acupuncture and usual care for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine without aura. These results support the use of manual acupuncture in patients who are reluctant to use prophylactic drugs or when prophylactic drugs are ineffective, and it should be considered in future guidelines.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02765581.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In a previous randomized, double-blind, proof-of-concept study in rapidly escalating migraine, a 3 mg dose of subcutaneous sumatriptan (DFN-11) was associated with fewer and shorter triptan sensations than a 6 mg dose. The primary objective of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of acute treatment with DFN-11 compared with placebo in episodic migraine. METHODS:This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled efficacy and safety study of DFN-11 in the acute treatment of adults with episodic migraine (study RESTOR). The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects taking DFN-11 who were pain free at 2 h postdose in the double-blind period compared with placebo. Secondary endpoints included earlier postdose timepoints, assessments of pain relief and subjects' freedom from their most bothersome symptom (MBS) (among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia). Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS:A total of 392 subjects was screened, 268 (68.4%) were randomized, and 234 (87.3% of those randomized) completed the double-blind treatment period. The proportion of subjects who were pain free at 2 h postdose was significantly greater in the DFN-11 group than in the placebo group (51.0% vs 30.8%, P??=??0.0023). Compared with placebo, significantly higher proportions of subjects treated with DFN-11 were also pain free at 30, 60, and 90 min postdose (P?????0.0195). DFN-11 was significantly superior to placebo for pain relief at 60 min, 90 min, and 2 h postdose (P???0.0179). At 2 h postdose, DFN-11 was also significantly superior to placebo for freedom from photophobia (P??=??0.0056) and phonophobia (P??=??0.0167). Overall, 33.3% (37/111) who received DFN-11 and 13.4% (16/119) who received placebo experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), the most common of which were injection site swelling (7.2% vs 0.8%) and pain (7.2% vs 5.9%). Chest discomfort was about half as common in the DFN-11 treatment group as it was in the placebo group (0.9% vs 1.7%). CONCLUSIONS:This study met its primary endpoint, pain freedom at 2 h postdose, with DFN-11 significantly better than placebo, and the incidence of TEAEs and triptan sensations with DFN-11 was low. The 3 mg dose of sumatriptan in DFN-11 appears to be an effective alternative to a 6 mg SC dose of sumatriptan, with good safety and tolerability. ( clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02569853; registered 07 October 2015).