Zhang, Feng

Abstract Objective To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk. Background Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene‐related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre‐existing CV risk factors. Methods Data pooled from four double‐blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10‐year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no‐risk‐factors, low‐risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate‐risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high‐risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE). Results There was no apparent difference between placebo‐ ( N = 1032) and erenumab‐treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1–3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long‐term analysis. Erenumab‐treated patients with high and moderate 10‐year CV risk ( N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double‐blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low‐risk erenumab group ( N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long‐term extensions of up to 5 years ( N = 2499; 3482 patient‐years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure‐adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient‐years) for no risk factor ( N = 1805), low ( N = 492), moderate ( N = 121), and high ( N = 81) 10‐year CV risk groups, respectively. Conclusions Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10‐year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.

Abstract Background Treatment wearing‐off has been reported for calcitonin gene‐related peptide‐pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle. Objective We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle. Methods In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double‐blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing‐off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1–3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles). Results There was no evidence of wearing‐off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1–3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing‐off, but the extent of wearing‐off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1–3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing‐off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab‐treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing‐off and those maintaining response. Conclusion No systematic wearing‐off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing‐off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Background Erenumab (erenumab-aooe in the US) effectively reduces monthly migraine days in episodic and chronic migraine. This traditional outcome does not capture the intensity of headache pain on days with migraine. Methods This post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine examined the effect of erenumab 70 and 140 mg on migraine pain. Cumulative monthly migraine pain intensity is the sum of the peak pain intensity scores (0 = no migraine to 3 = migraine day with severe pain) on migraine days. Change from baseline in cumulative monthly migraine pain and average monthly pain intensity was assessed over months 4 to 6 for episodic migraine and month 3 for chronic migraine; change in average monthly pain intensity was assessed among monthly migraine days responders/non-responders. Results Efficacy analysis included 946 patients for the episodic migraine study and 656 patients for the chronic migraine study. Cumulative monthly migraine pain decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo ( p < 0.001, for episodic migraine and chronic migraine). In addition, monthly average migraine pain intensity decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo for episodic migraine ( p < 0.01); decreases were non-significant for chronic migraine. In comparison with placebo-treated patients, a greater proportion of erenumab-treated patients were pain intensity responders regardless of threshold used. Episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (responders) had a greater reduction in monthly average pain intensity than non-responders. Conclusions Erenumab reduced cumulative monthly migraine pain in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients and significantly reduced monthly average migraine pain in episodic migraine, demonstrating treatment benefit beyond reduction in migraine frequency. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02066415

Objective To assess the efficacy of erenumab at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) response thresholds, using data from the 6‐month double‐blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Migraine Prevention (STRIVE) pivotal clinical trial. Methods Enrolled patients with episodic migraine (EM; ≥4 MMD and <15 monthly headache days) were randomized (1:1:1) to erenumab 70 mg (n = 312), erenumab 140 mg (n = 318), or placebo (n = 316) once monthly. We determined the proportions of patients with ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in MMD over the last 3 months of the STRIVE DBTP (months 4 through 6) and conducted post hoc analyses to contextualize the treatment benefit in patient subgroups achieving, and not achieving, these response thresholds. Outcome measures included changes in MMD, acute migraine‐specific medication days (MSMD), and patient‐reported outcomes. Results The proportions of patients with a reduction in MMD from baseline were greater for erenumab than for placebo at all response thresholds. As previously reported for the ≥50% response threshold, 135/312 (43.3%) of patients on erenumab 70 mg and 159/318 (50.0%) on erenumab 140 mg responded, vs 84/316 (26.6%) for placebo. At months 4 through 6, 65/312 (20.8%) and 70/318 (22.0%) of those on erenumab 70 mg and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% reductions vs 25/316 (7.9%) on placebo. A reduction of 100% response, which required no migraine days over 3 consecutive months based on observed data, was achieved by 10/312 (3.2%) of patients treated with erenumab 70 mg and 16/318 (5.0%) for erenumab 140 mg, vs 9/316 (2.8%) for placebo. At all response thresholds, responders achieved numerically greater reductions in mean MMD and MSMD, and greater improvements in disability than did the overall population; importantly, these remarkable responses were noted early. Meanwhile, 60/312 (19.2%) and 53/318 (16.7%) patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, had no reduction in MMD from baseline in months 4 through 6, compared with 104/316 (32.9%) patients on placebo. Conclusions The responses at the ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% thresholds provide context for establishing realistic patient and physician expectations regarding the magnitude of treatment benefit that may be achieved by patients with EM responding to erenumab (STRIVE, NCT02456740).