Search

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) are associated with substantial headache-related disability, poor quality of life and global societal burden. In this subgroup analysis from the CONQUER study, we report efficacy outcomes from a pre-specified analysis of galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with CM or EM and 3–4 prior preventive medication category failures due to inadequate efficacy (after at least 2 months at maximum tolerated dose), or safety or tolerability reasons. The patient population is of particular interest due to evidence of decreased quality of life and increased economic burden among patients with migraine that is inadequately managed and is of interest to decision-makers globally. Methods: Key outcomes included overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and proportions of patients achieving ≥30% (CM), ≥50%, and ≥ 75% reduction (response rates) in monthly migraine headache days across Months 1–3. Patient functioning and disability were evaluated at Month 3. Results: Of the 462 randomized patients, 186 (40.3%) had a history of 3–4 preventive category failures. Galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significantly (P ≤.001) larger overall mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days (total: − 5.49 versus − 1.03; CM: − 6.70 versus − 1.56; EM: − 3.64 versus − 0.65). Similarly, the ≥50% response rate was significantly (P ≤.001) higher with galcanezumab versus placebo (total: 41.0 versus 12.7; CM: 41.5 versus 8.4; EM: 41.1 versus 16.5). In the CM group, the ≥30% response rate was significantly higher in the galcanezumab group than the placebo group (CM, 57.5 versus 19.8, P ≤.0001) as was the ≥75% response rate (13.3 versus 2.6, P ≤.05). Galcanezumab also resulted in significant (P <.0001) improvements in patient functioning and reductions in disability. Conclusions: Galcanezumab was effective in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with CM or EM who had failed 3–4 prior preventive medication categories. Trial registration: CONQUER. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03559257. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study was to obtain parameter estimates for the efficacy of duloxetine versus alternative oral therapies for the treatment of chronic low back pain. Materials and Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trials. Studies reporting pain intensity, with parallel-group design of oral treatments with length of treatment of more than 8 weeks were included. A Bayesian approach to indirect comparisons was applied, using standardised mean difference as a measure of relative treatment effect. Results: Fifteen studies were identified comparing duloxetine with the following oral drug classes: non-scheduled opioids, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, scheduled opioids, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and 'other' (i.e. glucosamine). The primary analysis found scheduled opioids to be more effective than duloxetine for the fixed effects model. However, the estimate of the treatment difference reflected a less than small magnitude of effect (|standardised mean difference| <0.2), and there was no difference for the random effects model. No differences were found in sensitivity analyses involving the subset of patients not receiving concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication. Conclusion: The available evidence shows that there does not seem to be any difference in efficacy between duloxetine and other oral pharmacological therapies, providing a valuable alternative for this disabling condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]