ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsAdult patients with migraine were randomized (1:1:1) to a double-blind dose of oral lasmiditan 200 mg, lasmiditan 100 mg, or placebo and were asked to treat their next migraine attack within 4 hours of onset. Over 48 hours after dosing, patients used an electronic diary to record headache pain and the presence of nausea, phonophobia, and photophobia, one of which was designated their most bothersome symptom (MBS).ResultsOf the 1,856 patients who treated an attack, 77.9% had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factors in addition to migraine. Compared with placebo, more patients dosed with lasmiditan 200 mg were free of headache pain at 2 hours after dosing (32.2% vs 15.3%; odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–3.6, p< 0.001), similar to those dosed with lasmiditan 100 mg (28.2%; OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.6–3.0, p< 0.001). Furthermore, compared with those dosed with placebo, more patients dosed with lasmiditan 200 mg (40.7% vs 29.5%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–2.1, p< 0.001) and lasmiditan 100 mg (40.9%; OR 1.7, 95% CI, 1.3–2.2, p< 0.001) were free of their MBS at 2 hours after dosing. Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in intensity.ConclusionsLasmiditan dosed at 200 and 100 mg was efficacious and well tolerated in the treatment of acute migraine among patients with a high level of cardiovascular risk factors.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT02439320.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that for adult patients with migraine, lasmiditan increases the proportion of subjects who are headache pain free at 2 hours after treating a migraine attack.

Lasmiditan, a serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist, was effective for acute treatment of patients with migraine in a phase 3 double-blind randomized controlled study. The current study was designed to replicate these findings in a generalizable population of patients with migraine, including those with a cardiovascular medical history. This prospective, double-blind, phase 3 multicentre study randomly assigned patients with migraine with and without aura (1:1:1:1 ratio) to oral lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg, or placebo. Patients were instructed to dose at home within 4 h of onset of migraine attack of at least moderate intensity and not improving. The primary objective was to assess the proportion of patients’ headache pain-free and most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h post-dose for each dose of lasmiditan versus placebo (NCT02605174). Patients (n = 3005) were assigned and treated (n = 2583, safety population): 1938 lasmiditan (200 mg n = 528, 100 mg n = 532, and 50 mg n = 556 included in primary analysis) and 645 placebo (540 included in primary analysis). Most patients (79.2%) had ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor at baseline, in addition to migraine. Lasmiditan was associated with significantly more pain freedom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 38.8%, odds ratio 2.3, 95% confidence interval 1.8–3.1, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 31.4%, odds ratio 1.7, 1.3–2.2, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 28.6%, odds ratio 1.5, 1.1–1.9, P = 0.003 versus placebo 21.3%) and freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h (lasmiditan 200 mg: 48.7%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% confidence interval 1.4–2.4, P < 0.001; 100 mg: 44.2%, odds ratio 1.6, 1.2–2.0, P < 0.001; 50 mg: 40.8%, odds ratio 1.4, 1.1–1.8, P = 0.009 versus placebo 33.5%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 253 of 649 (39.0%), 229 of 635 (36.1%), and 166 of 654 (25.4%) of patients on lasmiditan 200, 100, and 50 mg, respectively, versus 75 of 645 (11.6%) on placebo. Most adverse events were CNS-related and included dizziness, somnolence and paraesthesia. Lasmiditan was effective at 2 h post-dose for acute treatment of migraine at all oral doses tested. Efficacy and safety were consistent with the previous phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Bebtelovimab is a potent, fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the S-protein of SARS-CoV-2, with broad neutralizing activity to all currently known SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including omicron variant lineages. Specialized developmental approaches accelerated the initiation of a clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bebtelovimab alone (BEB) or together with bamlanivimab (BAM) and etesevimab (ETE) delivered via slow intravenous push for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This portion of the phase 2, BLAZE-4 trial (J2X-MC-PYAH; NCT04634409) enrolled 714 patients (between May and July 2021) with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 within 3 days (≤3 days) of laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients at low risk for severe COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 (double-blinded) to placebo, BEB 175 mg, or BEB 175 mg+BAM 700 mg+ETE 1400 mg (BEB+BAM+ETE). Patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were randomized 2:1 (open-label) to BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE, and a subsequent treatment arm enrolled patients to BEB+BAM+ETE using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated criteria for High-risk. All treatments were administered intravenously over ≥30 seconds (open-label BEB) or ≥6.5 minutes (all other treatment arms). For the placebo-controlled patients (termed Low-risk), the primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with persistently high viral load (PHVL) (log viral load >5.27) on Day 7. For the open-label patients (termed High-risk), the primary endpoint was safety. In nonclinical studies, SARS-CoV-2 isolates were tested using an endpoint neutralization assay to measure BEB's inhibitory concentration greater than 99% (IC99). RESULTS: Baseline viral sequencing data were available from 611 patients; 90.2% (n=551) aligned with a variant of interest or concern (WHO designation), with the majority infected with delta (49.8%) or alpha (28.6%) variants. Among the Low-risk patients, PHVL occurred in 19.8% of patients treated with placebo, as compared to 12.7% (p=0.132) of patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE and 12.0% (p=0.097) of patients treated with BEB, a 36% and 40% relative risk reduction, respectively. Viral load-area under the curve analysis from baseline to Day 11 showed statistically signficant reductions for patients treated with BEB (p=0.006) and BEB+BAM+ETE (p=0.043) compared to patients who received placebo. Time to sustained symptom resolution was reduced by a median of 2 days for patients treated with BEB (6 days; p=0.003) and 1 day for patients treated with BEB+BAM+ETE (7 days; p=0.289) compared to placebo (8 days). The incidence of COVID-19-related hospitalization or all-cause deaths by day 29 were similar across treatment arms, as expected given the patients' risk status (the Low risk cohorts had a Low risk of hospitalization, and High risk cohorts received only active therapy without placebo). Overall, safety results were consistent with previous studies investigating mAbs targeting SARS-CoV-2. The proportion of patients with treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were 9.7% in Low-risk (n=37/380) and 14.7% in High-risk (n=48/326) patients treated with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE; majority of AEs were considered mild or moderate in severity. Serious AEs were reported in 2.1% of High-risk patients (n=7/326), including one death (a cerebrovascular accident); 1 serious AE was reported among Low-risk patients. In an in vitro neutralization assay, BEB neutralized the omicron isolate (BA.1) with <2.44ng/ml estimated IC99. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, treatment with BEB or BEB+BAM+ETE was associated with greater viral clearance, a reduction in time to sustained symptom resolution, and safety results consistent with mAbs that target SARS-CoV-2. Integration of clinical findings with in vitro neutralization of emerging viral variants offered a pragmatic framework for investigating the efficacy of a new antiviral mAb agent, as demonstrated by bebtelovimab.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate atomoxetine treatment effects in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD-only), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with comorbid dyslexia (ADHD + D), or dyslexia only on ADHD core symptoms and on sluggish cognitive tempo (SCT), working memory, life performance, and self-concept. Methods: Children and adolescents (10-16 years of age) with ADHD + D (n = 124), dyslexia-only (n = 58), or ADHDonly (n = 27) received atomoxetine (1.0-1.4 mg/kg/day) or placebo (ADHD-only subjects received atomoxetine) in a 16 week, acute, randomized, double-blind trial with a 16 week, open-label extension phase (atomoxetine treatment only).

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess the effects of atomoxetine on treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), on reading performance, and on neurocognitive function in youth with ADHD and dyslexia (ADHD+D).MethodsPatients with ADHD (n = 20) or ADHD+D (n = 36), aged 10-16 years, received open-label atomoxetine for 16 weeks. Data from the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHDRS-IV), Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (K-TEA), Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C), and Life Participation Scale for ADHD-Child Version (LPS-C) were assessed.ResultsAtomoxetine demonstrated significant improvement for both groups on the ADHDRS-IV, LPS-C, and K-TEA reading comprehension standard and composite scores. K-TEA spelling subtest improvement was significant for the ADHD group, whereas the ADHD+D group showed significant reading decoding improvements. Substantial K-TEA reading and spelling subtest age equivalence gains (in months) were achieved for both groups. The WMTB-C central executive score change was significantly greater for the ADHD group. Conversely, the ADHD+D group showed significant phonological loop score enhancement by visit over the ADHD group. Atomoxetine was well tolerated, and commonly reported adverse events were similar to those previously reported.ConclusionsAtomoxetine reduced ADHD symptoms and improved reading scores in both groups. Conversely, different patterns and magnitude of improvement in working memory component scores existed between ADHD and ADHD+D patients. Though limited by small sample size, group differences in relation to the comparable changes in improvement in ADHD symptoms could suggest that brain systems related to the therapeutic benefit of atomoxetine in reducing ADHD symptoms may be different in individuals with ADHD+D and ADHD without dyslexia.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00191048