Search

Objective: To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies. Background: Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off-label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995. Methods/Results: Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of “cluster headache,” and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo-controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo-controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges. Conclusions: Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.

Objective The objective of the study was to assess the tolerability and safety of galcanezumab in patients with chronic cluster headache (CH) with up to 15 months of treatment. Background Chronic CH is a highly debilitating disease with a substantial and unmet medical need. Methods Patients were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab (300 mg) monthly for 12 weeks, followed by an optional 52-week open-label extension and 16-week posttreatment follow-up (washout). This is a secondary analysis and long-term follow-up of a previously conducted clinical trial. The safety analysis included patients who received galcanezumab at any time during the study. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, laboratory values, vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and suicidality ratings. Results A total of 233 patients received at least one galcanezumab dose. The mean exposure was 341 days. Galcanezumab-treated patients were mostly male (n = 169/233; 72.5%) with a mean age of 44.9 (±10.9) years. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 185 patients (n = 185/233; 79.4%), 23 patients (n = 23/233; 9.9%) reported serious adverse events (SAEs), and 18 patients (n = 18/233; 7.7%) discontinued due to AEs. The SAE CH was reported by three patients. The most common TEAEs (>10%) were nasopharyngitis (n = 41/233; 17.6%) and injection site pain (n = 33/233; 14.2%). 27.5% of patients (n = 64/233) had TEAEs related to injection sites. Likely hypersensitivity events, including injection site rash, injection site urticaria, and injection site hypersensitivity were reported (n = 14/233; 6.0%). There were past histories of suicidal ideation (n = 55/237; 23.2%) and suicidal behavior (n = 9/236; 3.8%). During the study, 15 patients (n = 15/230; 6.5%), seven with previous history, reported suicidal ideation. One patient had a nonfatal suicide attempt during the open-label extension and an aborted attempt during the washout. There were no new safety findings compared with the placebo-controlled treatment period in laboratory values, vital signs, or ECGs. Conclusions Galcanezumab 300 mg monthly had a favorable tolerability and safety profile in patients with chronic CH with up to 15 months of treatment.

Tirzepatide (TZP) is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon like peptide (GLP) -1 receptor agonist developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Patients receiving TZP may develop an immune response to the 39 amino acid synthetic peptide. This study aimed to evaluate treatment emergent (TE) anti-drug antibodies (ADA) in TZP-treated participants across 7 Phase 3 trials and its potential effect on pharmacokinetics (PK) , efficacy, and safety. A multi-tiered immunogenicity testing strategy was used to detect and characterize ADA. ADA were characterized for their ability to cross react to native GIP (nGIP) and GLP-1 (nGLP-1) , neutralize TZP activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors, and neutralize nGIP and nGLP-1. ADA were assessed at baseline and throughout the course of the study up to week 40 (SURPASS 1, 2, and 5) or week 52 (SURPASS 3, 4, Japan-mono, and Japan-combo) . Among all ADA-evaluable patients across the Phase 3 trials (N=5025) , TE ADA developed in 51.1% of patients treated with TZP, and the proportions were similar across the 3 TZP dose groups (5, 10, and 15 mg) . At baseline, 7.0% of patients had pre-existing ADA. Maximum ADA titers ranged from 1:20 to 1: 81920 (median 1:160) among TE ADA+ patients. Neutralizing antibodies (NAb) against TZP activity on GIP and GLP-1 receptors were observed in 1.9% and 2.1% of the TE ADA+ patients, respectively. Less than 1.0% of TZP-treated TE ADA+ patients had cross-reactive NAb against nGIP or nGLP-1. TE ADA status, ADA titer, and NAb had no discernible impact on PK profile nor HbA1c effects of TZP. The percentage of TE ADA+ and TE ADA- patients with hypersensitivity reactions was similar. A higher proportion of TE ADA+ patients reported injection site reactions, of which all were nonserious and non-severe, and the vast majority occurred and/or resolved irrespective of TE ADA status or titer level.Overall, immunogenicity was not associated with any impact on TZP PK, efficacy, or safety. Disclosure B. Calderon: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. G.R. Mullins: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Hodsdon: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. G. Li: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. G. Anglin: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. S. Urva: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. K. Schneck: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. J.N. Bardos: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. R.F. Martins: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Eli Lilly and Company. K. Brown: Employee; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Funded by Eli Lilly and Company.

Background Cluster headache (CH) is a highly disabling primary headache disorder. To date, characterization of outcomes in the preventive treatment of episodic CH, including precise definitions of clinically meaningful attack frequency reduction and impact on acute treatment management, is lacking. Methods This was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients (men or women aged 18-65 years) diagnosed with episodic CH as defined by the International Classification of Headache Disorders-3 beta criteria. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated the median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attack frequency, and impact on acute medication use. An anchor-based assessment of clinically relevant attack frequency reduction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores at Week 4 was also assessed. Results The median time-to-first occurrence of ≥50, ≥75, or 100% reduction from baseline in CH attacks was consistently shorter (9-10 days sooner) with galcanezumab vs placebo (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI]: ≥50%, 5 days [4.0 to 7.0] vs 14 days [6.0 to 19.0]; ≥75%, 11 days [7.0 to 16.0] vs 21 days [13.0 to 26.0]; 100%, 22 days [16.0 to 37.0] vs 32 days [23.0 to 34.0]). Mean reduction from baseline in the overall frequency of weekly pooled acute medication use across Weeks 1-3 was significantly greater with galcanezumab vs placebo (11.0 vs 5.5; odds ratio, OR [95% CI]: 5.52 [1.02, 10.01]; P value = .017). Patients reporting "much better" on the PGI-I experienced a median weekly CH attack reduction of approximately 43% from baseline across Weeks 1-3. The overall odds of achieving an attack reduction threshold of 43% across Weeks 1-3 was significantly higher with galcanezumab vs placebo (Weeks 1-3: OR [95% CI], 2.60 [1.3 to 5.3]). Conclusions Faster median time-to-first occurrence of response rates, lower frequency of pooled acute medications use, and a greater proportion of patients achieving a response anchored by patient-reported improvement were observed for galcanezumab vs placebo.

Objective To report efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in adults with chronic cluster headache. Background Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide and inhibits its biological activity. Methods This study comprised a prospective baseline period, a 12-week double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period, and a 52-week open-label period. Up to six protocol-specified concomitant preventive medications were allowed if patients were on a stable dose for 2 months prior to the prospective baseline period. Patients were randomized 1:1 to monthly subcutaneous galcanezumab (300 mg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in weekly attack frequency with galcanezumab compared to placebo. Key secondary endpoints were ≥50% response rate and percentage of patients meeting sustained response. Results from the double-blind treatment period are reported. Results A total of 237 patients were randomized and treated (120 placebo; 117 galcanezumab). At baseline, the mean age was 45 years and 63% were using ≥1 preventive drug. The primary endpoint was not met; mean change in weekly attack frequency was −4.6 placebo versus −5.4 galcanezumab ( p = 0.334). Key secondary endpoints also were not met. Injection site-related treatment-emergent adverse events were more common in the galcanezumab than the placebo group, with significantly more injection site erythema. Conclusion Treatment with galcanezumab 300 mg did not achieve its primary and key secondary endpoints. This study underscores the potential distinct biology of cCH as well as the significant unmet need for safe, effective, and well-tolerated preventive treatment. The safety profile of galcanezumab in cCH is consistent with that observed in trials of episodic CH and migraine. Trial registration NCT02438826; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02438826 .

J Scott Andrews,1 David Kudrow,2 Mallikarjuna Rettiganti,1 Tina Oakes,1 Jennifer N Bardos,1 Richard Wenzel,1 Dulanji K Kuruppu,1 Charly Gaul,3 James M Martinez1 1Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 2California Medical Clinic for Headache, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 3Headache Center, Frankfurt, GermanyCorrespondence: Mallikarjuna RettigantiEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, 893 Delaware St., Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USATel +1 3176519378Email rettiganti_mallikarjuna@lilly.comPurpose: In a phase 3 study, galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of episodic cluster headache attacks across weeks 1– 3 (primary endpoint) compared with placebo. However, multiple pain dimensions may contribute to the total burden of episodic cluster headache pain. This post hoc analysis assessed the impact of galcanezumab on the total pain burden of episodic cluster headache using a composite measure.Patients and Methods: Patients with episodic cluster headache were randomized 1:1 to galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo once monthly for 8 weeks. Mean weekly total pain burden was calculated (daily cluster headache attack frequency × average duration × average pain severity summed over 7 days) using data collected in an electronic patient-reported outcomes diary. Change from baseline in weekly total pain burden across weeks 1– 3 was compared between galcanezumab and placebo. To explore construct validity, mean weekly total pain burden scores were stratified by Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) responses at the week 4 clinic visit.Results: The reduction from baseline in mean weekly total pain burden was significantly greater with galcanezumab (N=49) than with placebo (N=57): the least squares mean difference was − 11.18 severity-weighted hours (p=0.035). Median weekly total pain burden decreased as PGI-I ratings improved, from 33.6 to 5.0 severity-weighted hours for patients who felt “very much worse” and “very much better,” respectively.Conclusion: Galcanezumab significantly reduced mean weekly total pain burden compared with placebo in patients with episodic cluster headache. The composite pain measure demonstrated construct validity. Total pain burden may provide a holistic measure of the pain of episodic cluster headache.Clinical Trials: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02397473.Keywords: composite pain, frequency, severity, duration, CGRP

Episodic cluster headache is a disabling neurologic disorder that is characterized by daily headache attacks that occur over periods of weeks or months. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be a preventive treatment for cluster headache.We enrolled patients who had at least one attack every other day, at least four total attacks, and no more than eight attacks per day during a baseline assessment, as well as a history of cluster headache periods lasting at least 6 weeks, and randomly assigned them to receive galcanezumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously at baseline and at 1 month. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 after receipt of the first dose. The key secondary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks at week 3. Safety was also assessed.Recruitment was halted before the trial reached the planned sample size of 162 because too few volunteers met the eligibility criteria. Of 106 enrolled patients, 49 were randomly assigned to receive galcanezumab and 57 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) number of cluster headache attacks per week in the baseline period was 17.8±10.1 in the galcanezumab group and 17.3±10.1 in the placebo group. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 was 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (difference, 3.5 attacks per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). The percentage of patients who had a reduction of at least 50% in headache frequency at week 3 was 71% in the galcanezumab group and 53% in the placebo group. There were no substantial between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events, except that 8% of the patients in the galcanezumab group had injection-site pain.Galcanezumab administered subcutaneously at a dose of 300 mg once monthly reduced the weekly frequency of attacks of episodic cluster headache across weeks 1 through 3 after the initial injection, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02397473.).

Objective: The efficacy of galcanezumab was evaluated in patients with episodic cluster headache and history of preventive treatment failure. Methods: In the randomized, 8-week, double-blind study (CGAL), patients with episodic cluster headache received once-monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab 300 mg or placebo. Patients who completed CGAL and enrolled in an open-label study were queried for preventive treatment history. In a subset of patients with a known history of failure of verapamil or any other prior preventive treatment, a post hoc analysis of least square mean change from baseline in weekly cluster headache attack frequency across Weeks 1 to 3 was assessed. Results: Fifteen patients provided data for known history of prior preventive treatment failure (6 placebo, 9 galcanezumab), of whom 11 failed verapamil. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks was greater with galcanezumab compared to placebo among patients with prior preventive treatment failure (8.2 versus 2.4); mean difference 5.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0, 13.6) and among patients with verapamil failure (10.1 versus 1.6); mean difference 8.5 (95% CI 0.4, 16.7). Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis of patients with a known history of prior preventive treatment failures, treatment with galcanezumab resulted in greater mean reductions in weekly cluster headache attacks compared with placebo. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02397473 (I5Q-MC-CGAL) NCT02797951 (I5Q-MC-CGAR)