Search

Objective: To evaluate long-term reductions in acute headache medication (AHM) use with eptinezumab versus placebo in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures and medication overuse (MO)., Background: Preventive migraine treatment is recommended for patients for whom AHMs have failed and for those who are using excessive amounts of AHM. MO may worsen headache and migraine symptoms in people with migraine; it is a risk factor for disease chronification and/or MO headache., Methods: DELIVER was a multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3b clinical trial that randomized adults with migraine and two to four prior preventive failures to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo infusion every 12 weeks; patients initially given placebo received eptinezumab 100 mg or 300 mg in the extension period. MO was defined according to diagnostic criteria for MO headache in the baseline diary reports. This post hoc analysis of the DELIVER study included change from baseline in AHM days/month of use (ergotamines, triptans, simple or combination analgesics, and opioids; total and select class-specific use) in the MO population., Results: A total of 890 patients were included in the total population, and 438/890 (49.2%) had MO at baseline. In both the total population and MO population, eptinezumab resulted in greater reductions in total AHM days/month of use during weeks 1-24 than placebo, with triptans showing the largest reduction among AHM classes. Patients switching from placebo to eptinezumab experienced reductions in AHM days/month similar to that of initial eptinezumab treatment. In the extension population, mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline in AHM days/month were -4.6 (0.32; 100 mg) and -4.8 (0.32; 300 mg) across weeks 1-4 in patients who received eptinezumab for the entire treatment period and were -4.8 (0.44; placebo-100 mg) and -5.5 (0.44; placebo-300 mg) across weeks 25-28 in patients who switched from placebo to eptinezumab. Mean (SE) changes from baseline in AHM days/month in the extension MO population were -6.5 (0.59; 100 mg) and -6.6 (0.57; 300 mg) across weeks 1-4 in patients who received eptinezumab for the entire treatment period and were -7.1 (0.81; 100 mg) and -8.0 (0.80; 300 mg) across weeks 25-28 in patients who were switched from placebo to eptinezumab. All treatment arms sustained or further reduced AHM use across 18 months of trial participation. Across weeks 1-4, in patients fulfilling criteria for MO at baseline, 68.0% (102/150) of patients treated with eptinezumab 100 mg and 74.7% (109/146) of patients treated with eptinezumab 300 mg reported AHM use below MO thresholds compared to 43.3% (61/141) of patients receiving placebo. In patients with MO at baseline, the proportion of patients without MO remained above 60.0% for all treatment groups during the extension period., Conclusions: Eptinezumab reduced total AHM use more than placebo in patients with prior preventive failures and in patients with MO at baseline; largest reductions were observed for triptans. Robust reductions in AHM use after eptinezumab were sustained or further reduced with up to 18 months of treatment, and most patients no longer met thresholds for MO., (© 2024 The Author(s). Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Society.)

Introduction: In the DELIVER study, eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) more than placebo in patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of eptinezumab across the 24-week placebo-controlled period of the DELIVER study in subgroups defined by prior treatment failure type., Methods: DELIVER (NCT04418765) randomized adults with migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously every 12 weeks. Changes from baseline in MMDs and percentages of patients with ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMDs (≥ 50% migraine responder rates [MRRs]) were summarized in subgroups of patients defined by prior treatment failure type. Subgroups were not mutually exclusive and included patients for whom topiramate, beta blockers (metoprolol, propranolol), amitriptyline, and/or flunarizine had failed., Results: Across Weeks 1-12 in all subgroups, patients treated with eptinezumab experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than those receiving placebo (reductions ranged from 4.5-5.5 vs 1.6-2.4, respectively), with larger reductions over Weeks 13-24. Similarly, ≥ 50% MRRs were consistently higher with eptinezumab than placebo and increased following a second infusion., Conclusion: In all subgroups, regardless of prior preventive treatment failure type, eptinezumab demonstrated greater reductions in MMDs and higher MRRs compared with placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Eptinezumab demonstrated efficacy in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures in the placebo-controlled phase of the DELIVER clinical trial; its long-term effectiveness in this population has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of eptinezumab in a migraine patient population during the 48-week extension phase of DELIVER., Methods: DELIVER was conducted June 1, 2020 to September 15, 2022. 865 adults with migraine, with documented evidence of 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures and with completion of the 24-week placebo-controlled period of DELIVER received eptinezumab (100 or 300 mg) during the dose-blinded extension, either continuing their randomized dose or, if originally receiving placebo, were randomized 1:1 to an eptinezumab dose (100 or 300 mg). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to evaluate changes from baseline in the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs)., Results: Of 865 patients entering the extension (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 433; 300 mg, n = 432), 782 (90.4%) completed and 11 (1.3%) discontinued due to an adverse event. Eptinezumab was associated with early and sustained reductions in migraine frequency. Mean MMDs at baseline were approximately 14 days across groups. Mean (standard error) change from baseline in MMDs over the final dosing interval (weeks 61-72) was -6.4 (0.50) with placebo/eptinezumab 100 mg, -7.3 (0.49) with placebo/eptinezumab 300 mg, -7.1 (0.39) with eptinezumab 100 mg, and -7.0 (0.39) with eptinezumab 300 mg. During weeks 61-72, 63-70% of patients demonstrated ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs, and 36-45% demonstrated ≥ 75% reduction. Headache severity and acute medication use reductions, and patient-reported improvements in most bothersome symptom, disease status, quality of life, and work productivity, were observed. Adverse events were generally mild, transient, and similar in frequency/type to previous eptinezumab trials., Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness and safety/tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures was demonstrated by high completion rates and migraine-preventive benefits sustained for up to 18 months, implying that eptinezumab is a viable long-term treatment option for patients still seeking successful migraine treatments., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765; URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2019-004497-25 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Migraine is a disabling neurological disease adversely affecting many aspects of life. Most patients are still required to have failed several older oral preventive therapies before being reimbursed for a preventive, migraine-specific anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide treatment. In the 24-week placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER, eptinezumab was shown to reduce migraine frequency and resulted in higher migraine responder rates compared with placebo in patients with two to four previous preventive treatment failures. This subgroup analysis assessed if demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with differences in preventive benefits., Methods: Migraine frequency reductions and responder rates (i.e., the proportion of patients reaching a ≥50% and ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days relative to baseline) were determined in the total population and predefined subgroups by sex, age, migraine frequency (chronic migraine, episodic migraine, high-frequency episodic migraine, low-frequency episodic migraine), medication overuse, medication-overuse headache, and previous preventive treatment failures (2, >2). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days over weeks 1-12., Results: Eptinezumab 100 and 300 mg reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo over weeks 1-12 (-4.8 and -5.3 vs -2.1, respectively; p  < 0.0001). In most subgroups, eptinezumab-treated patients demonstrated larger monthly migraine days reductions from baseline over weeks 1-12 than patients receiving placebo, with reductions maintained or increased over weeks 13-24. For ≥50% and ≥75% migraine responder rates, the odds ratios versus placebo all numerically favored eptinezumab., Conclusion: Eptinezumab had larger monthly migraine days reductions and higher responder rates than placebo across clinically relevant subgroups showing that, across different demographic populations and clinical characteristics, eptinezumab is effective in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765).

Background and Purpose: In the phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled DELIVER clinical trial, eptinezumab reduced migraine frequency and headache in adults with two to four prior preventive treatment failures. Here, the effect of eptinezumab on coinciding patient-reported outcomes is reported., Methods: Adults were randomized to receive eptinezumab 100, 300 mg or placebo intravenously at weeks 12 and 24. The EQ-5D-5L, measuring overall patient health, and the six-item Headache Impact Test were completed every 4 weeks. The Patient Global Impression of Change was completed at weeks 4, 12 and 24. Patient-identified most bothersome symptom and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were administered at weeks 12 and 24., Results: Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes more than placebo, starting at week 4 and at all subsequent time points. By week 12, patients' overall health (EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale score) improved with eptinezumab treatment (difference from placebo in change from baseline: 100 mg, 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2, 8.1, p < 0.001; 300 mg, 7.5, 95% CI 4.5, 10.4, p < 0.0001). At week 12, eptinezumab improved headache-related quality of life (difference from placebo in change from baseline in Headache Impact Test total score: 100 mg, -3.8, 95% CI -5.0, -2.5, p < 0.0001; 300 mg, -5.4, 95% CI -6.7, -4.2, p < 0.0001), including each Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire domain (p ≤ 0.0001, all comparisons). Over twice as many patients receiving eptinezumab than placebo reported much or very much improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change and patient-identified most bothersome symptom., Conclusion: Patients with two to four prior preventive treatment failures receiving eptinezumab versus placebo reported greater improvements in well-being, quality of life and most bothersome symptoms compared to placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04418765; EudraCT identifier: 2019-004497-25., (© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Neurology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Neurology.)

Background: The multinational phase 3b DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with prior preventive treatment failures across 17 countries. In the placebo-controlled portion, eptinezumab relative to placebo demonstrated greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, migraine and headache severity, and acute medication use. The objective of this report is to describe the effects of eptinezumab on self-reported work productivity in the placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER., Methods: Adults 18-75 years of age with migraine and documented evidence of 2 to 4 prior preventive treatment failures in the past 10 years were randomized to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo intravenously (IV) every 12 weeks. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire specific to migraine (WPAI:M), which comprises 6 items (4 of which are completed by currently employed patients only), was administered every 4 weeks. Changes from baseline in subscores (absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment) were calculated based on item responses. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to analyze changes from baseline in WPAI:M subscores., Results: A total of 890 adults (mean age, 43.8 years) were included in the full analysis set (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 299; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 293; placebo, n = 298). Mean WPAI:M subscores at baseline indicated a negative impact of migraine attacks on work productivity and ability to complete normal daily activities. Eptinezumab improved WPAI:M subscores more than placebo at all assessment points throughout the study. Mean changes from baseline in self-reported work productivity loss were -19.5, -24.0, and -9.7 at Week 12; and -22.6, -20.2, and -7.2 at Week 24 (all P < 0.001 vs placebo) for eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo, respectively. Mean changes from baseline in activity impairment were -21.3, -23.8, and -11.2 at Week 12; and -24.7, -22.6, and -10.1 at Week 24 (all P < 0.0001 vs placebo). Similarly, mean improvements in absenteeism and presenteeism were greater in the eptinezumab groups than in the groups receiving placebo at all timepoints (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: In adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failure, eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg IV every 12 weeks improved absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment more than placebo., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25) ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-004497-25/PL ). Eptinezumab improves self-reported work productivity in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The benefits of preventive treatment on the effectiveness of migraine management have rarely been examined. This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of eptinezumab on the optimization of acute medication effectiveness using the 4-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-4) to measure acute medication optimization over 4 weeks post-infusion., Methods: RELIEF was a 12-week, phase 3, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in patients aged 18-75 years with a ≥ 1-year history of migraine and 4-15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized 1:1 to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1-6 h of a qualifying migraine attack. The mTOQ-6 and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) were administered at screening visit and week 4. From the mTOQ-6, we calculated the mTOQ-4 using the following items: "2-h pain free," "24-h relief," "able to plan," and "feeling in control" to measure acute medication optimization., Results: A total of 238 patients received eptinezumab 100 mg and 226 provided week 4 data; 242 received placebo and 232 provided week 4 data. In the eptinezumab arm, the proportion of patients with moderate/maximal optimization increased from 31.4% at baseline to 58.0% (26.6 percentage point increase) at week 4. The corresponding proportions in the placebo group were 40.5% to 50.4% (9.9 percentage point increase). Eptinezumab treatment was associated with numerically larger improvements in HIT-6 at week 4. Relative improvements with eptinezumab vs. placebo from baseline to week 4 in HIT-6 were greater in those with poor treatment optimization at baseline., Conclusions: In comparison with placebo, treatment with eptinezumab was associated with improvements in acute medication optimization as measured by mTOQ and reductions in headache impact, as measured by HIT-6. These benefits were greater in those with poor acute treatment optimization prior to preventive treatment with eptinezumab., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04152083 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The monoclonal antibody eptinezumab, which targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, has shown migraine preventive effects starting the day following infusion and acceptable safety and tolerability in phase 3 trials, but benefits in the subpopulations of patients with previous preventive treatment failures were not examined. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in adults with migraine and two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures., Methods: DELIVER was a multicentre, multi-arm, phase 3b trial comprising a 24-week double-blind, placebo-controlled period and a 48-week dose-blinded extension. We recruited adults with episodic or chronic migraine with at least 4 monthly migraine days (as per International Headache Society guidelines) and documented evidence of two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures within the past 10 years, from 96 study locations across Europe (n=93) and the USA (n=3). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) via a centralised randomisation system, stratified by baseline monthly headache days and country, to eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (captured using a daily electronic diary) in weeks 1-12, assessed in the full analysis set. All participants and study personnel were masked to study drug assignments. The dose-blinded extension period is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04418765, and EudraCT, 2019-004497-25., Findings: Between June 1, 2020, and Oct 7, 2021, 891 individuals were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug (safety population; eptinezumab 100 mg n=299 [34%], eptinezumab 300 mg n=294 [33%], placebo n=298 [33%]). 865 patients completed the placebo-controlled period. The change from baseline to weeks 1-12 in mean monthly migraine days was -4·8 (SE 0·37) with eptinezumab 100 mg, -5·3 (0·37) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and -2·1 (0·38) with placebo. The difference from placebo in change in mean monthly migraine days from baseline was significant with eptinezumab 100 mg (-2·7 [95% CI -3·4 to -2·0]; p<0·0001) and eptinezumab 300 mg (-3·2 [-3·9 to -2·5]; p<0·0001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 127 (42%) of 299 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, in 120 (41%) of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, and in 119 (40%) of 298 in the placebo group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was COVID-19 (20 [7%] of 299 patients in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, 17 [6%] of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, and 16 [5%] of 298 in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were uncommon (five [2%] of 299 in the eptinezumab 100 mg group, seven [2%] of 294 in the eptinezumab 300 mg group, four [1%] of 298 in the placebo group) and included anaphylactic reaction (eptinezumab 300 mg n=2) and COVID-19 (eptinezumab 100 mg n=1 and eptinezumab 300 mg n=1)., Interpretation: In adults with migraine and two-to-four previous preventive treatment failures, eptinezumab provided significant migraine preventive effects compared with placebo, with acceptable safety and tolerability, indicating that eptinezumab might be an effective treatment option for this patient population. The dose-blinded extension period will provide additional long-term safety data in patients with migraine and previous preventive treatment failures., Funding: H Lundbeck., Competing Interests: Declarations of interests MA reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals during the conduct of the study. MA reports serving as associate editor of Cephalalgia, associate editor of The Journal of Headache and Pain, and associate editor of Brain. MLM reports personal fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Grunenthal, Pfizer, Reckitt Benkiser, Sun Pharmaceutical, UPSA, and Zambon; grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medtronic, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; and payment or honoraria for lectures from Amicus, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Teva Pharmaceuticals, UPSA, and Zambon. ML-M reports serving as associate editor of The Journal of Headache and Pain and associate editor of Current Pain and Headache Reports. PP-R reports honoraria as a consultant and participation in the past 3 years in advisory boards for Allergan/AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; institutional research support from AGAUR, EraNet NEURON, La Caixa Foundation, Instituto Investigación Carlos III, International Headache Society, RIS3CAT FEDER, PERIS, AbbVie, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; education projects with Allergan/AbbVie, Almirall, Chiesi, Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, Medlink, Medscape, Neurodiem, Novartis, and Teva Pharmaceuticals; participation in the Scientific Advisory Board of Migraine Research Foundation & Lilly Foundation Spain and Honorary Secretary of the International Headache Society; and being an associate editor for Cephalalgia, Headache, Neurologia, Frontiers of Neurology, director for headache section of Revista de Neurologia, and editorial advisor for Journal of Headache and Pain. MKJ and BS are full-time employees of H Lundbeck (Copenhagen, Denmark) and own stock or stock options in H Lundbeck. AE, CLC, and RP are full-time employees of H Lundbeck or one of its subsidiary companies., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Demonstrating therapeutic value from the patient perspective is important in patient-centered migraine management. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of eptinezumab, a preventive migraine treatment, on patient-reported headache impact, acute medication optimization, and perception of disease change when initiated during a migraine attack., Methods: RELIEF was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted between 2019 and 2020 in adults with ≥1-year history of migraine and 4-15 migraine days per month in the 3 months prior to screening. Patients were randomized (1:1) to a 30-min infusion of eptinezumab 100 mg or placebo within 1-6 h of a qualifying migraine attack onset. The 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and 6-item Migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire (mTOQ-6) were administered at baseline and week 4, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) at week 4. A post hoc analysis of these measures was conducted in patients who reported headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start., Results: Of 480 patients enrolled and treated, 476 completed the study and are included in this analysis. Mean baseline HIT-6 total scores indicated severe headache impact (eptinezumab, 65.1; placebo, 64.8). At week 4, the eptinezumab-treated group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in HIT-6 total score compared with placebo (mean change from baseline: eptinezumab, - 8.7; placebo, - 4.5; mean [95% CI] difference from placebo: - 4.2 [- 5.75, - 2.63], P < .0001), with greater reductions in each item score vs placebo (P < .001 all comparisons). Change in HIT-6 total score in the subgroup with 2-h headache pain freedom was - 13.8 for the eptinezumab group compared with - 4.9 for the placebo group. mTOQ-6 total score mean change from baseline favored eptinezumab (change, 2.1) compared with placebo (1.2; mean [95% CI] difference: 0.9 [0.3, 1.5], P < .01). More eptinezumab-treated patients rated PGIC as much or very much improved than placebo patients (59.3% vs 25.9%)., Conclusions: When administered during a migraine attack, eptinezumab significantly improved patient-reported outcomes after 4 weeks compared with placebo, with particularly pronounced effects in patients reporting headache pain freedom at 2 h after infusion start., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04152083 . November 5, 2019., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The humanized anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody eptinezumab has been evaluated in five large-scale clinical trials conducted in patients with migraine. This integrated analysis was conducted to evaluate the comprehensive safety and tolerability of eptinezumab in patients with migraine across these studies., Methods: Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and the first year of one open-label study., Results: The pooled population comprised 2867 adults with migraine: eptinezumab, n = 2076 (4797 infusions); placebo, n = 791 (1675 infusions). A total of 1137/2076 (54.8%) patients who received eptinezumab and 414/791 (52.3%) patients who received placebo experienced ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE); rates were similar across eptinezumab dose groups (10-1000 mg). For most patients with TEAEs, the events were mild or moderate in severity and considered unrelated to study drug by the investigators. Thirty infusion-site AEs occurred in 27/2076 (1.3%) patients who received eptinezumab and 7 in 7/791 (0.9%) patients who received placebo. Infusion-site AEs led to infusion interruption in 19/2076 (0.9%) and 5/791 (0.6%) patients in the eptinezumab and placebo groups, respectively. Nasopharyngitis occurred in ≥2% of patients in the eptinezumab 300-mg group and with an incidence of at least 2 percentage points greater than in the placebo group; however, in most patients (eptinezumab, 139/140; placebo 40/41), its occurrence was considered not related to study treatment. Adverse events coded to hypersensitivity occurred for 23/2076 (1.1%) patients treated with eptinezumab and no patients in the placebo group. If additional TEAE terms that could indicate hypersensitivity are considered (e.g., urticaria, flushing/hot flush, rash, and pruritus), hypersensitivity reactions in the two pivotal placebo-controlled phase 3 studies occurred in ≥2% of patients in the eptinezumab 100-mg and 300-mg groups, and the incidence was at least 2 percentage points greater in either of these groups than in the placebo group. Most hypersensitivity reactions were not serious and resolved with standard medical treatment or observation without treatment, usually within 1 day., Conclusions: In adults with migraine, the intravenous administration of eptinezumab every 12 weeks demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifiers: NCT01772524 , NCT02275117 , NCT02559895 , NCT02974153 , NCT02985398 ).

Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation in Alzheimer's dementia (AAD)., Design: Two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm studies (NCT01862640; NCT01922258)., Setting: Study 1: 81 sites in 7 countries. Study 2: 62 sites in 9 countries., Participants: Patients with AAD (Study 1: 433 randomized; Study 2: 270 randomized) in a care facility or community-based setting. Stable Alzheimer disease medications were permitted., Intervention: Study 1 (fixed dose): brexpiprazole 2 mg/day, brexpiprazole 1 mg/day, or placebo (1:1:1) for 12 weeks. Study 2 (flexible dose): brexpiprazole 0.5-2 mg/day or placebo (1:1) for 12 weeks., Measurements: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) (Total score range: 29-203; higher scores indicate more frequent agitated behaviors), and Clinical Global Impression - Severity of illness (CGI-S) as related to agitation. Safety was also assessed., Results: In Study 1, brexpiprazole 2 mg/day demonstrated statistically significantly greater improvement in CMAI Total score from baseline to Week 12 than placebo (adjusted mean difference, -3.77; confidence limits, -7.38, -0.17; t (316)  = -2.06; p = 0.040; MMRM). Brexpiprazole 1 mg/day did not show meaningful separation from placebo (0.23; -3.40, 3.86; t (314)  = 0.12; p = 0.90; MMRM). In Study 2, brexpiprazole 0.5-2 mg/day did not achieve statistical superiority over placebo (-2.34; -5.49, 0.82; t (230)  = -1.46; p = 0.15; MMRM). However, a benefit was observed in post hoc analyses among patients titrated to the maximum brexpiprazole dose of 2 mg/day compared with similarly titrated placebo patients (-5.06; -8.99, -1.13; t (144)  = -2.54; p = 0.012; MMRM). On the CGI-S, a greater numerical improvement than placebo was demonstrated for brexpiprazole 2 mg/day in Study 1 (-0.16; -0.39, 0.06; t (337)  = -1.42; nominal p = 0.16; MMRM), and a greater improvement for brexpiprazole 0.5-2 mg/day in Study 2 (-0.31; -0.55, -0.06; t (222)  = -2.42; nominal p = 0.016; MMRM). In Study 1, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with incidence ≥5% among patients receiving brexpiprazole 2 mg/day were headache (9.3% versus 8.1% with placebo), insomnia (5.7% versus 4.4%), dizziness (5.7% versus 3.0%), and urinary tract infection (5.0% versus 1.5%). In Study 2, TEAEs with incidence ≥5% among patients receiving brexpiprazole 0.5-2 mg/day were headache (7.6% versus 12.4% with placebo) and somnolence (6.1% versus 3.6%). In both studies, the majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity., Conclusions: Brexpiprazole 2 mg/day has the potential to be efficacious, safe, and well tolerated in the treatment of AAD., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate brexpiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapies (ADTs) as maintenance treatment in patients with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to ADT, utilising a novel study design., Methods: The study comprised an 8-week prospective treatment period with open-label ADT with double-blind placebo treatment and a 24-week randomised treatment period. Investigators and patients were blinded to treatment periods, randomisation criteria, and timing of randomisation. Patients with early response to open-label ADT were withdrawn at Week 6. Patients fulfilling criteria for inadequate response were randomised to ADT+brexpiprazole 1-3 mg/day, or ADT+placebo. The primary endpoint was full remission: Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score ≤10 and ≥50% decrease from randomisation (i.e. baseline) in MADRS total score for at least 8 consecutive weeks., Results: The primary efficacy analysis failed to show a statistically significant difference between the proportions of patients on ADT+brexpiprazole (21.4%) and ADT+placebo (24.9%) achieving full remission; odds ratio: 0.83; p=0.2641. The secondary endpoint of change from baseline to Week 6 in MADRS total score showed no difference between ADT+brexpiprazole and ADT+placebo (-0.4; p=0.3259). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) in patients receiving ADT+brexpiprazole was weight increased (9.5% vs. 5.0% in ADT+placebo). The incidence of TEAEs leading to withdrawal in the randomised treatment period was 6.3% in the ADT+brexpiprazole group and 3.4% in the ADT+placebo group., Conclusion: Adjunctive brexpiprazole did not differentiate from ADT+placebo on the primary endpoint of full remission. A number of design elements in this previously untried study design may have contributed to the study result. Brexpiprazole was well tolerated.

Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole as adjunctive treatment in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and an inadequate response to prior antidepressant treatment (ADT)., Methods: Patients with a current major depressive episode after prior treatment with 1-3 ADTs entered an 8- or 10-week prospective treatment phase in which they received double-blind placebo adjunct to open-label ADT. Inadequate responders were randomized (2:2:1) to brexpiprazole 2-3 mg/day, placebo, or quetiapine extended-release (XR) 150-300 mg/day, adjunct to the same ADT, for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline (randomization) to week 6 in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The key secondary efficacy endpoint was the change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) mean score., Results: Adjunctive brexpiprazole showed a greater improvement in MADRS total score than adjunctive placebo (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval] = -1.48 [-2.56, -0.39]; p = .0078), whereas adjunctive quetiapine XR did not separate from placebo (-0.30 [-1.63, 1.04]; p = .66). Adjunctive brexpiprazole failed to separate from placebo on the SDS mean score (-0.23 [-0.52, 0.07]; p = .13), but did improve functioning on two of the three SDS items (family life and social life). The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events in patients receiving brexpiprazole were akathisia (6.1%), somnolence (5.6%), and headache (5.6%)., Conclusions: Adjunctive brexpiprazole 2-3 mg/day improved symptoms of depression compared with adjunctive placebo in patients with MDD and an inadequate response to ADTs, and was well tolerated with no unexpected side effects.

Objective: Review efficacy, safety, and tolerability of brexpiprazole in patients with schizophrenia in short- and long-term phase 3 studies., Methods: Patients experiencing a current exacerbation of schizophrenia received brexpiprazole in two fixed-dose (2 and 4 mg), 6-week, placebo-controlled studies, one flexible-dose (2-4 mg), 6-week, placebo-control and active reference study, and one fixed-dose (1-4 mg), 52-week, placebo-controlled maintenance study., Results: The efficacy of brexpiprazole was demonstrated in the two short-term fixed-dose studies with statistically significant improvements from baseline in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score compared with placebo. In the flexible-dose short-term study, treatment with brexpiprazole resulted in numerically greater improvements in PANSS total score than with placebo that approached statistical significance (p=0.056). A meta-analysis of these short-term studies showed a mean change in PANSS total score of -20.1, reflecting a clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms. In the maintenance study, brexpiprazole had a beneficial effect relative to placebo on time to exacerbation of psychotic symptoms/impending relapse (p<0.0001). For all studies, brexpiprazole demonstrated clinically meaningful treatment effects on the Personal and Social Performance scale. Brexpiprazole had a favourable safety profile, with a relatively low prevalence of activating and sedating side effects. Weight gain in the short-term studies was ~1 kg greater than placebo. No safety concerns were observed with brexpiprazole in laboratory values, electrocardiogram, or vital signs., Conclusions: Overall, the results indicate brexpiprazole, used either short-term or as part of a long-term maintenance treatment programme, is an efficacious therapy option in adults with schizophrenia and has a favourable safety/tolerability profile.

In a previous study (Christensen, 1996. Prev. Vet. Med. 26, 107-118), an effect parameter changed from positive to negative depending on the model used. The study considered lameness in suckling piglets and the dataset included 7632 litters from 35 herds from the Health and Production Surveillance (HEPS) system database. To further investigate the change in the effect parameter, we performed a simple test to demonstrate the presence of herd-level variation. Finding substantial herd-level variation, we have re-analysed the data with special attention to the herd-level variation, and how to account for it. When herd-level variation was not accounted for in the model, a detrimental effect of prior treatment of the sow was seen but this turned into a beneficial effect when we accounted for the herd-level variation. The treatment of sow refers to any therapeutic treatment given to the sow after farrowing but before lameness or weaning occurred. This is, therefore, an example where not only the variances but also the effect parameters changed when we accounted for herd-level variation.