Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine.

METHODS

In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months.

RESULTS

Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Baseline demographics and disease characteristics of patients with episodic or chronic cluster headache: data from two phase 3 randomized clinical trials in Europe and North America

Objective

Two phase 3 galcanezumab trials were conducted in Europe and North America to analyze the reduction of weekly cluster headache (CH) attack frequency in populations with episodic and chronic CH. The current study aims to illustrate prospectively recorded baseline clinical data from these trials and to identify possible predictors of response.

Methods

Patients (aged 18-65 years) met The International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition-beta criteria for CH. Attacks were evaluated using an electronic headache diary for 7-day (episodic) or 14-day (chronic) eligibility assessments before patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo.

Results

Data were collected from 106 patients with episodic and 237 with chronic CH. Overall, the mean age [standard deviation] was 45.4 [11.0] years; patients were predominantly White (84.5%), male (75.8%), and European (77.6%). Patients with episodic CH reported 17.5 [10.0] attacks/week; patients with chronic CH reported 18.8 [10.2] attacks/week. The average pain severity score (range 0-4) was 2.5 [0.7] for episodic CH and 2.7 [0.7] for chronic CH. Higher attack frequency was a possible predictor of response to galcanezumab; potential negative predictors of response were greater attack severity and duration.

Conclusion

This large dataset of patients with CH provides reliable systematically and prospectively collected information on disease characteristics. The analysis in episodic CH underscores potential predictors of response worth considering for future CH trial design.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifiers: NCT02397473 and NCT02438826.

Safety and tolerability of duloxetine in the acute management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: analysis of pooled data from three placebo-controlled clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Summarize safety and tolerability of duloxetine in treating diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Pooled data from three double-blind, randomized studies with 12-week, placebo-controlled (acute) and 52-week, routine-care-controlled (extension) phases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency/discontinuations due to treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

RESULTS

There were 1139 (placebo, n = 339; duloxetine, n = 800) and 867 (routine-care, n = 287; duloxetine, n = 580) patients in the acute and extension phases, respectively. Patient details were as follow: 60 years (mean age); Caucasian, 84%; and male, 57%. In the acute phase, there were significantly more TEAEs, duloxetine versus placebo (p = 0.001), the most common being nausea and somnolence. Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly greater (12.5 vs 5.6%, p < 0.001), with similar outcomes in the extension phase. Baseline-to-endpoint aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase were significantly increased and fasting plasma glucose was increased for duloxetine (0.67 mmol/l) versus decreased in routine-care (-0.64 mmol/l, p < 0.001). HbA1c was significantly increased, duloxetine vs routine-care, in the extension phase (52 vs 19%, p < 0.001). Endpoint measures neuropathy, nephropathy and retinopathy indicated no disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Duloxetine was generally safe and well tolerated, with the three most commonly reported TEAEs being nausea, somnolence and constipation. Modest changes in glycemia were associated with duloxetine. Aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase increases were transient and not considered predictive of more severe outcomes.