Search

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine., Methods: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137)., Findings: Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%])., Interpretation: Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant., Funding: Allergan (now AbbVie)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PPR reports support for the present study from AbbVie, personal fees from AbbVie, Biohaven, Chiesi, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva, and grants paid to her research group from AbbVie, AGAUR, EraNet Neuron, FEDER RIS3CAT, Instituto Investigación Carlos III, International Headache Society, Novartis, and Teva. JA reports support for the present study from AbbVie, personal fees from AbbVie, Aeon, Amgen, Axsome, Biohaven, BioDelivery Sciences International, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Impel, Linpharma, Lundbeck, Miravio, Neso, Neurolief, Satsuma, Teva, and Theranica, clinical trial support from AbbVie, Biohaven, Eli Lilly, Satsuma, and Zosano, and stock options from CtrlM. She has provided editorial services to Current Pain and Headache Reports, Medscape, NeurologyLive, and SELF magazine. MA reports support for the present study from AbbVie, personal fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, and grants paid to his institution from the Lundbeck Foundation, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk Foundation. PJG reports support for the present study and personal fees during the conduct of the study from AbbVie, a grant from Celgene, and personal fees from Aeon Biopharma, Amgen, BioDelivery Sciences International, CoolTech LLC, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Epalex, Impel Neuropharma, Lundbeck, Novartis, Praxis, Sanofi, Satsuma, Shiratronics, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Tremeau, personal fees for advice through Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint, SAI Med Partners, and Vector Metric, fees for educational materials from CME Outfitters and WebMD, and fees for publishing from Massachusetts Medical Society and Oxford University Press and for medicolegal advice in headache. He has a patent for magnetic stimulation for headache, which is licensed to eNeura without fee. RBL reports support for the present study from AbbVie, research support paid to his institution for the present study from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging (2PO1 AG003949, Einstein Aging Study), the S&L Marx Foundation, the Czap Foundation, the National Headache Foundation, the Migraine Research Foundation, and the US Food and Drug Administration, and personal fees from AbbVie/Allergan, American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Amgen, Biohaven, Biovision, Boston, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (Promius), electroCore, Eli Lilly, eNeura, Equinox, GlaxoSmithKline, Grifols, Lundbeck (Alder), Merck, Pernix, Pfizer, Teva, Vector, and Vedanta Research. He holds stock or options in Biohaven and Manistee. UR reports support for the present study paid to his institution from AbbVie, grants from BMBF (German Ministry for Research) and Novartis, and personal and institutional fees from AbbVie, Allergan, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Medscape, Novartis, Pfizer, StreaMedUp, and Teva. HG, BS, RB, RDAF, EM, and JMT are employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock. KL, RM, SYY, LS, and MF are former employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, over 12 months in women with endometriosis-associated pain., Methods: Elaris Endometriosis (EM)-III and -IV were extension studies that evaluated an additional 6 months of treatment after two 6-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials (12 continuous treatment months) with two elagolix doses (150 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily). Coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of responders (clinically meaningful pain reduction and stable or decreased rescue analgesic use) based on average monthly dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain scores. Safety assessments included adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, and endometrial and bone mineral density assessments. The power of Elaris EM-III and -IV was based on the comparison to placebo in Elaris EM-I and -II with an expected 25% dropout rate., Results: Between December 28, 2012, and October 31, 2014 (Elaris EM-III), and between May 27, 2014, and January 6, 2016 (Elaris EM-IV), 569 participants were enrolled. After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III responder rates for dysmenorrhea were 52.1% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 550.8%) and 78.2% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EMIV 575.9%). Elaris EM-III nonmenstrual pelvic pain responder rates were 67.5% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV 566.4%) and 69.1% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV 567.2%).”After 12 months of treatment, Elaris EM-III dyspareunia responder rates were 45.2% at 150 mg once daily (Elaris EM-IV=45.9%) and 60.0% at 200 mg twice daily (Elaris EM-IV=58.1%). Hot flush was the most common adverse event. Decreases from baseline in bone mineral density and increases from baseline in lipids were observed after 12 months of treatment. There were no adverse endometrial findings., Conclusion: Long-term elagolix treatment provided sustained reductions in dysmenorrhea, nonmenstrual pelvic pain, and dyspareunia. The safety was consistent with reduced estrogen levels and no new safety concerns were associated with long-term elagolix use., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01760954 and NCT02143713.

Background: Endometriosis is a chronic, estrogen-dependent condition that causes dysmenorrhea and pelvic pain. Elagolix, an oral, nonpeptide, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, produced partial to nearly full estrogen suppression in previous studies., Methods: We performed two similar, double-blind, randomized, 6-month phase 3 trials (Elaris Endometriosis I and II [EM-I and EM-II]) to evaluate the effects of two doses of elagolix - 150 mg once daily (lower-dose group) and 200 mg twice daily (higher-dose group) - as compared with placebo in women with surgically diagnosed endometriosis and moderate or severe endometriosis-associated pain. The two primary efficacy end points were the proportion of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea and the proportion who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain at 3 months. Each of these end points was measured as a clinically meaningful reduction in the pain score and a decreased or stable use of rescue analgesic agents, as recorded in a daily electronic diary., Results: A total of 872 women underwent randomization in Elaris EM-I and 817 in Elaris EM-II; of these women, 653 (74.9%) and 632 (77.4%), respectively, completed the intervention. At 3 months, a significantly greater proportion of women who received each elagolix dose met the clinical response criteria for the two primary end points than did those who received placebo. In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to dysmenorrhea was 46.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 75.8% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 19.6% in the placebo group; in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 43.4% and 72.4%, as compared with 22.7% (P<0.001 for all comparisons). In Elaris EM-I, the percentage of women who had a clinical response with respect to nonmenstrual pelvic pain was 50.4% in the lower-dose elagolix group and 54.5% in the higher-dose elagolix group, as compared with 36.5% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons); in Elaris EM-II, the corresponding percentages were 49.8% and 57.8%, as compared with 36.5% (P=0.003 and P<0.001, respectively). The responses with respect to dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain were sustained at 6 months. Women who received elagolix had higher rates of hot flushes (mostly mild or moderate), higher levels of serum lipids, and greater decreases from baseline in bone mineral density than did those who received placebo; there were no adverse endometrial findings., Conclusions: Both higher and lower doses of elagolix were effective in improving dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain during a 6-month period in women with endometriosis-associated pain. The two doses of elagolix were associated with hypoestrogenic adverse effects. (Funded by AbbVie; Elaris EM-I and EM-II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01620528 and NCT01931670 .).

Intestinal tumors from mice and humans can have a polyclonal origin. Statistical analyses indicate that the best explanation for this source of intratumoral heterogeneity is the presence of interactions among multiple progenitors. We sought to better understand the nature of these interactions. An initial progenitor could recruit others by facilitating the transformation of one or more neighboring cells. Alternatively, two progenitors that are independently initiated could simply cooperate to form a single tumor. These possibilities were tested by analyzing tumors from aggregation chimeras that were generated by fusing together embryos with unequal predispositions to tumor development. Strikingly, numerous polyclonal tumors were observed even when one genetic component was highly, if not completely, resistant to spontaneous tumorigenesis in the intestine. Moreover, the observed number of polyclonal tumors could be explained by the facilitated transformation of a single neighbor within 144 μm of an initial progenitor. These findings strongly support recruitment instead of cooperation. Thus, it is conceivable that these interactions are necessary for tumors to thrive, so blocking them might be a highly effective method for preventing the formation of tumors in the intestine and other tissues.