1
|
Kuruppu DK, Tobin J, Dong Y, Aurora SK, Yunes-Medina L, Green AL. Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with migraine who did not benefit from commonly prescribed preventive treatments. BMC Neurol 2021; 21:175. [PMID: 33892641 PMCID: PMC8063415 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-021-02196-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 04/07/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Galcanezumab is a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine. While galcanezumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients who did not respond to prior preventive medications in general, its efficacy in patients who did not benefit from individual, commonly prescribed preventive treatments due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability remains unknown. Methods CONQUER was a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study that enrolled patients with episodic or chronic migraine who had 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication category failures in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive placebo (N = 230) or galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240 mg loading dose; N = 232). Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine the efficacy of galcanezumab in patients who had not benefited from six of the most commonly prescribed migraine preventive medications. The mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and ≥ 50 % response rates were assessed over months 1–3. Improvement in Migraine-Specific Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive (MSQ-RFR) scores were assessed at month 3. The endpoints were estimated via mixed model with repeated measures. Results The most common treatment failures due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability, which at least 20 % of patients reported trying without benefit, included topiramate, amitriptyline, propranolol, valproate or divalproex, onabotulinum toxin A, and metoprolol. Patients who had not previously benefited from these treatments had a greater mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days across months 1–3 in the galcanezumab group compared to placebo (all p < 0.01). More patients treated with galcanezumab experienced a ≥ 50 % reduction from baseline in monthly migraine headache days across months 1–3 compared to placebo (all p < 0.05). Galcanezumab-treated patients had a greater improvement in mean MSQ-RFR scores at month 3 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01). Conclusions In this population, galcanezumab was effective in reducing monthly migraine headache days, improving response rates, and enhancing quality of life in patients who had not previously benefited from topiramate, amitriptyline, propranolol, valproate or divalproex, onabotulinum toxin A, and/or metoprolol due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03559257 (CONQUER).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Yan Dong
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | | | - A Laine Green
- Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Schwedt TJ, Kuruppu DK, Dong Y, Standley K, Yunes-Medina L, Pearlman E. Early onset of effect following galcanezumab treatment in patients with previous preventive medication failures. J Headache Pain 2021; 22:15. [PMID: 33765912 PMCID: PMC7992932 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-021-01230-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Galcanezumab demonstrated early onset of effect in patients with migraine but it is unknown whether the same holds true for patients who have not benefited from multiple prior migraine preventives. Methods Patients with episodic or chronic migraine from a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study (CONQUER) who had 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication category failures in the past 10 years were randomized 1:1 to placebo (N = 230) or galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240 mg loading dose; N = 232). In this post-hoc analysis, change from baseline in number of monthly and weekly migraine headache days was assessed. Monthly onset of effect was the earliest month at which significant improvement with galcanezumab compared to placebo was achieved and maintained at all subsequent months. Weekly onset was the initial week at which statistical separation was achieved and maintained at all subsequent weeks during that month. Proportion of patients with migraine headache days in the first week of treatment, and patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response by month and week were also assessed. Results Galcanezumab-treated patients had a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine headache days starting at month 1, which remained significant for all subsequent months compared to placebo (all p ≤ 0.0001, month 1 mean change from baseline: placebo − 0.7; galcanezumab − 4.0). Weekly migraine headache days was significantly reduced in galcanezumab-treated patients starting at week 1 and continued for each subsequent week of month 1 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01, week 1 mean change from baseline: placebo − 0.2; galcanezumab − 1.1). A significantly smaller percentage of patients had a migraine headache on the first day after galcanezumab treatment compared to placebo (28.4% vs 39.2%) and at each subsequent day during week 1 (all p < 0.05). A greater proportion of galcanezumab-treated patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response at months 1–3 (all p < 0.05) and at weeks 1–4 of month 1 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01). Conclusion Galcanezumab showed early onset of effect beginning the day after treatment initiation in patients who had not previously benefited from migraine preventive treatments. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257. Registered 18 June 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Yan Dong
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Mulleners WM, Kim BK, Láinez MJA, Lanteri-Minet M, Pozo-Rosich P, Wang S, Tockhorn-Heidenreich A, Aurora SK, Nichols RM, Yunes-Medina L, Detke HC. Safety and efficacy of galcanezumab in patients for whom previous migraine preventive medication from two to four categories had failed (CONQUER): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol 2020; 19:814-825. [PMID: 32949542 DOI: 10.1016/s1474-4422(20)30279-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 144] [Impact Index Per Article: 36.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Revised: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 07/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many patients who require migraine preventive treatment have not been able to tolerate or have not responded to multiple previous preventive medications. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, in patients with migraine who had not benefited from preventive medications from two to four categories. METHODS CONQUER was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial done at 64 sites (hospitals, clinics, or research centres) in 12 countries (Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, the UK, and the USA). Patients were 18-75 years of age, with episodic or chronic migraine, with migraine onset before the age of 50 years, who had a documented failure of preventive medications from two to four drug categories in the past 10 years owing to lack of efficacy or tolerability, or both. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive subcutaneous placebo or galcanezumab 120 mg per month (with a 240 mg loading dose administered as two 120 mg injections) for 3 months. For masking purposes, patients receiving placebo also received two injections during the first dosing visit. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated random sequence by means of an interactive web-response system stratified by country and migraine frequency (low frequency episodic migraine, four to fewer than eight migraine headache days per month; high frequency episodic migraine, eight to 14 migraine headache days per month and fewer than 15 headache days per month; chronic migraine, at least eight migraine headache days per month and at least 15 headache days per month). The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month treatment period in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257, and is now completed. FINDINGS Between Sept 10, 2018, and March 21, 2019, 462 participants with episodic (269 [58%]) or chronic (193 [42%]) migraine were randomly assigned and received at least one injection with placebo (n=230) or galcanezumab (n=232). Galcanezumab-treated patients had significantly greater reduction in migraine headache days versus placebo across months 1-3. The galcanezumab group had on average 4·1 fewer monthly migraine headache days compared with baseline (13·4), while the placebo group had on average 1·0 fewer than at baseline (13·0; between-group difference -3·1 [95% CI -3·9 to -2·3]; p<0·0001; effect size=0·72). Types and number of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between galcanezumab and placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 122 (53%) of 230 patients in the placebo group and 119 (51%) of 232 patients in the galcanezumab group. There were four serious adverse events during the study, two (1%) reported in the placebo group and two (1%) reported in the galcanezumab group. INTERPRETATION Galcanezumab was superior to placebo in the preventive treatment of migraine and was safe and well tolerated in patients for whom multiple previous standard-of-care preventive treatments had failed. Galcanezumab might represent an important treatment option for patients who have not benefited from or tolerated previous standard-of-care treatments. FUNDING Eli Lilly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wim M Mulleners
- Neurology Department, Canisius Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Byung-Kun Kim
- Neurology Department, Nowon Eulji Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Miguel J A Láinez
- Hospital Clínico Universitario, Universidad Católica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - Michel Lanteri-Minet
- Pain Department CHU Nice and FHU InovPain Côte Azur University, Nice, France; INSERM/UdA, U1107, Neuro-Dol, Auvergne University, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Patricia Pozo-Rosich
- Headache Unit, Neurology Department, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain; Headache Research Group, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research, Department de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Bangs ME, Kudrow D, Wang S, Oakes TM, Terwindt GM, Magis D, Yunes-Medina L, Stauffer VL. Correction to: Safety and tolerability of monthly galcanezumab injections in patients with migraine: integrated results from migraine clinical studies. BMC Neurol 2020; 20:90. [PMID: 32169042 PMCID: PMC7068985 DOI: 10.1186/s12883-020-01675-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Mark E Bangs
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA
| | - David Kudrow
- California Medical Clinic for Headache, Santa Monica, CA, USA
| | - Shufang Wang
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA
| | - Tina M Oakes
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA
| | | | - Delphine Magis
- Neurology Dept and Pain Clinic (CMTD), CHR East Belgium, Verviers, Belgium
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ashina M, Vasudeva R, Jin L, Lombard L, Gray E, Doty EG, Yunes-Medina L, Kinchen KS, Tassorelli C. Onset of Efficacy Following Oral Treatment With Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Integrated Results From 2 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Studies. Headache 2019; 59:1788-1801. [PMID: 31529622 PMCID: PMC6899640 DOI: 10.1111/head.13636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/14/2019] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
Objective To expand on available information on the efficacy of oral lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine with particular focus on the timing of the effect and on its impact on migraine‐associated symptoms. Background Lasmiditan is a novel selective 5‐hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist that lacks vasoconstrictive activity. In 2 phase 3 studies, SAMURAI and SPARTAN, lasmiditan met primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints at 2 hours following initial dose. Methods Integrated analyses were completed from 2 phase 3 clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Baseline data and data collected every 30 minutes up to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to determine the onset of efficacy. A total of 5236 patients were randomized to be treated with placebo (N = 1493), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 750), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1498), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1495). Data were analyzed to determine the onset of improvement for the following efficacy measures: pain freedom, most bothersome symptom freedom, pain relief, freedom from associated individual symptoms (photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea), total migraine freedom (defined as pain freedom and freedom from associated symptoms), and freedom from migraine‐related functional disability. Time to meaningful headache relief and time to first become pain free were also analyzed. Results Significantly higher rates of pain freedom (100 mg, 10.0%, P = .012; 200 mg, 15.5%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.0%) and total migraine freedom (100 mg, 8.9%, P = .017; 200 mg, 12.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 6.1%) were achieved starting at 60 minutes in 100‐ and 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated groups compared with placebo group. Rates of freedom from most bothersome symptom (100 mg, 11.1%, P = .015; 200 mg, 13.0%, P < .001; Placebo, 7.9%), and pain relief (100 mg, 17.5%, P = .007; 200 mg, 19.1%, P < .001; Placebo, 13.4%) were significantly higher starting as early as 30 minutes in lasmiditan 100‐ and 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated group achieved freedom from photophobia (13.7%, P = .005; Placebo, 9.2%) and phonophobia (17.4%, P = .042; Placebo, 13.4%) starting at 30 minutes. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the 200‐mg lasmiditan‐treated group achieved freedom from migraine‐related functional disability starting at 60 minutes (16.4%, P < .001; Placebo, 11.1%). All efficacy measures, except for freedom from nausea, were statistically significant after lasmiditan treatment (50, 100, or 200 mg) compared with placebo at 90 and 120 minutes. Finally, patients taking lasmiditan had a higher likelihood of achieving meaningful headache relief and becoming headache pain free within 24 hours compared with those taking placebo (P < .001). Conclusions Patients treated with lasmiditan for a migraine attack reported an earlier onset of efficacy compared with those treated with placebo. Some of the efficacy measures such as pain relief demonstrated improvement as early as the first assessment at 30 minutes after 100‐ or 200‐mg lasmiditan treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Messoud Ashina
- Danish Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | | | - Leah Jin
- Covance Chiltern, Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Louise Lombard
- Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - Erin G Doty
- Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | - Kraig S Kinchen
- Lilly Corporate Center, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Cristina Tassorelli
- Headache Science Centre, IRCCS C. Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy.,Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Abstract
Many reviews on the CD1d/NKT cell axis focus on the ability of CD1d-restricted NKT cells to serve as effector cells in a variety of disorders, be they infectious diseases, cancer or autoimmunity. In contrast, here, we discuss the ways that viruses, bacteria and tumor cells can evade the CD1d/NKT cell axis. As a result, these disease states have a better chance to establish a foothold and potentially cause problems for the subsequent adaptive immune response, as the host tries to rid itself of infections or tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Randy R Brutkiewicz
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5181, United States.
| | - Laura Yunes-Medina
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5181, United States
| | - Jianyun Liu
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5181, United States
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Quinn BR, Yunes-Medina L, Johnson GVW. Transglutaminase 2: Friend or foe? The discordant role in neurons and astrocytes. J Neurosci Res 2018; 96:1150-1158. [PMID: 29570839 DOI: 10.1002/jnr.24239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2018] [Revised: 03/01/2018] [Accepted: 03/12/2018] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Members of the transglutaminase family catalyze the formation of isopeptide bonds between a polypeptide-bound glutamine and a low molecular weight amine (e.g., spermidine) or the ɛ-amino group of a polypeptide-bound lysine. Transglutaminase 2 (TG2), a prominent member of this family, is unique because in addition to being a transamidating enzyme, it exhibits numerous other activities. As a result, TG2 plays a role in many physiological processes, and its function is highly cell type specific and relies upon a number of factors, including conformation, cellular compartment location, and local concentrations of Ca2+ and guanine nucleotides. TG2 is the most abundant transglutaminase in the central nervous system (CNS) and plays a pivotal role in the CNS injury response. How TG2 affects the cell in response to an insult is strikingly different in astrocytes and neurons. In neurons, TG2 supports survival. Overexpression of TG2 in primary neurons protects against oxygen and glucose deprivation (OGD)-induced cell death and in vivo results in a reduction in infarct volume subsequent to a stroke. Knockdown of TG2 in primary neurons results in a loss of viability. In contrast, deletion of TG2 from astrocytes results in increased survival following OGD and improved ability to protect neurons from injury. Here, a brief overview of TG2 is provided, followed by a discussion of the role of TG2 in transcriptional regulation, cellular dynamics, and cell death. The differing roles TG2 plays in neurons and astrocytes are highlighted and compared to how TG2 functions in other cell types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Breandan R Quinn
- Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Laura Yunes-Medina
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| | - Gail V W Johnson
- Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.,Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.,Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Yunes-Medina L, Paciorkowski A, Nuzbrokh Y, Johnson GVW. Depletion of transglutaminase 2 in neurons alters expression of extracellular matrix and signal transduction genes and compromises cell viability. Mol Cell Neurosci 2017; 86:72-80. [PMID: 29197584 DOI: 10.1016/j.mcn.2017.11.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2017] [Revised: 10/20/2017] [Accepted: 11/21/2017] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
The protein transglutaminase 2 (TG2) has been implicated as a modulator of neuronal viability. TG2's role in mediating cell survival processes has been suggested to involve its ability to alter transcriptional events. The goal of this study was to examine the role of TG2 in neuronal survival and to begin to delineate the pathways it regulates. We show that depletion of TG2 significantly compromises the viability of neurons in the absence of any stressors. RNA sequencing revealed that depletion of TG2 dysregulated the expression of 86 genes with 59 of these being upregulated. The genes that were upregulated by TG2 knockdown were primarily involved in extracellular matrix function, cell signaling and cytoskeleton integrity pathways. Finally, depletion of TG2 significantly reduced neurite length. These findings suggest for the first time that TG2 plays a crucial role in mediating neuronal survival through its regulation of genes involved in neurite length and maintenance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Yunes-Medina
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 603, Rochester, NY 14642, United States.
| | - Alex Paciorkowski
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 603, Rochester, NY 14642, United States; Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 603, Rochester, NY 14642, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 603, Rochester, NY 14642, United States; Department Biomedical Genetics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 604, Rochester, NY 14642, United States.
| | - Yan Nuzbrokh
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 604, Rochester, NY 14642, United States.
| | - Gail V W Johnson
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 604, Rochester, NY 14642, United States; Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Ave, Box 604, Rochester, NY 14642, United States.
| |
Collapse
|