Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

ObjectiveBlood pressure (BP), pulse, electrocardiogram (ECG), and clinical cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated for up to 6 months with galcanezumab compared to placebo were evaluated.BackgroundCalcitonin gene‐related peptide, a potent microvascular vasodilator, has a hypothesized protective role in CV health. Increased CV risks have been reported in patients with migraine.MethodsIn 2 similarly designed episodic migraine 6‐month studies and 1 chronic migraine 3‐month study, data from patients randomized (1:1:2) to subcutaneous injection of galcanezumab 120 mg/month (following initial 240 mg loading dose) or 240 mg/month or placebo were pooled. Treatment comparisons for cardiovascular treatment‐emergent adverse events (CV TEAE) and categorical and mean changes in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel test. Mean changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and ECG were evaluated using the analysis of covariance model.ResultsOverall, among galcanezumab 120 mg (n = 705) and 240 mg (n = 730), and placebo (n = 1451) groups, the percentage of patients reporting ≥1 CV TEAE was low and was similar between the galcanezumab 120 mg (2.6%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.5,1.5) and galcanezumab 240 mg (3.3%; OR = 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7,1.9), and placebo (2.9%) groups. The frequency of any individual CV TEAE, broad or narrow term, was ≤1.4%. The CV‐related serious adverse events that occurred in the galcanezumab 240 mg group (n = 3; acute myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, and transient ischemic attack) and placebo group (n = 3; pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction) were not considered treatment related. Four placebo‐ and 1 galcanezumab‐treated patient discontinued due to a CV TEAE. Least squares mean and categorical changes from baseline in BP, pulse, and QT interval corrected using Fridericia’s correction were similar across treatment groups.ConclusionsIn this 6‐month treatment trial, the percentages of galcanezumab‐ and placebo‐treated patients that reported CV TEAEs or serious adverse events were low and similar between groups with few discontinuations. Thus, no clinically meaningful treatment group differences were observed for changes in BP, pulse, or ECG parameters. Additional longer‐term studies in a broader and larger cohort are required to better characterize CV safety.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Background: Migraine clinical profile may change with age, making it necessary to verify that migraine treatments are equally safe and effective in older patients. These analyses evaluated the effects of patient age on the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine. Methods: Analyses included efficacy data from three double-blind phase 3 clinical trials: two 6-month studies in episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2: N = 1773) and one 3-month study in chronic migraine (REGAIN:N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. Safety and PK data included additional phase 2 and phase 3 trials for a larger sample size of patients > 60 years (range = 18-65 for all studies). Subgroup analyses assessed efficacy measures, adverse event (AE) occurrence, and cardiovascular measurement changes by patient age group. Galcanezumab PK were evaluated using a population analysis approach, where age was examined as a potential covariate on apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution (V/F) of galcanezumab. Results: Numbers of baseline monthly migraine headache days were similar across age groups. There were no statistically significant treatment-by-age group interactions for any efficacy measures, except in episodic migraine studies where older patients appeared to have a larger reduction than younger patients in the number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use. Age (18-65) had a minimal effect on CL/F, and no effect on V/ F. Galcanezumab-treated patients ≥60 years experienced no clinically meaningful increases in blood pressure and no increased frequency in treatment-emergent AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) overall, or cardiovascular SAEs, compared to age-matched placebo-treated patients.

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.