早期使用艾伦单抗与非特异性口服偏头痛预防药的对比:APPRAISE 随机临床试验》。

IF 20.4 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY JAMA neurology Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0368
Patricia Pozo-Rosich, David Dolezil, Koen Paemeleire, Adam Stepien, Philipp Stude, Josefin Snellman, Michal Arkuszewski, Tracy Stites, Shannon Ritter, Cristina Lopez Lopez, Jeff Maca, Matias Ferraris, Raquel Gil-Gouveia
{"title":"早期使用艾伦单抗与非特异性口服偏头痛预防药的对比:APPRAISE 随机临床试验》。","authors":"Patricia Pozo-Rosich, David Dolezil, Koen Paemeleire, Adam Stepien, Philipp Stude, Josefin Snellman, Michal Arkuszewski, Tracy Stites, Shannon Ritter, Cristina Lopez Lopez, Jeff Maca, Matias Ferraris, Raquel Gil-Gouveia","doi":"10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.</p>","PeriodicalId":14677,"journal":{"name":"JAMA neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":20.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Patricia Pozo-Rosich, David Dolezil, Koen Paemeleire, Adam Stepien, Philipp Stude, Josefin Snellman, Michal Arkuszewski, Tracy Stites, Shannon Ritter, Cristina Lopez Lopez, Jeff Maca, Matias Ferraris, Raquel Gil-Gouveia\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14677,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":20.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10964163/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0368\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2024.0368","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:偏头痛患者常常因耐受性差和/或疗效不佳而循环使用多种非特异性预防药物,导致依从性低和疾病负担加重:目的:比较艾伦单抗和非特异性口服偏头痛预防药物(OMPMs)在既往1或2种预防治疗失败的发作性偏头痛(EM)患者中的疗效、耐受性、患者依从性和患者满意度:为期12个月的前瞻性、干预性、全球性、多中心、主动对照、随机临床试验比较了2种治疗模式(艾瑞单抗qm与口服预防药物)在成人发作性偏头痛患者中的持续获益(APPRAISE)试验是一项为期12个月的开放标签、多中心、主动对照、4期随机临床试验,于2019年5月15日至2021年10月1日进行。这项实用性试验在 17 个国家的 84 个中心进行。总体而言,18 岁或以上、有 12 个月或更长偏头痛病史、每月偏头痛天数(MMD)为 4 天或更多但少于 15 天的参与者均被纳入其中:患者随机(2:1)接受erenumab或OMPMs治疗。允许调整剂量(取决于标签):主要终点是完成1年初始分配治疗并在第12个月时MMDs比基线减少50%或更多的患者比例。次要终点包括:在治疗期间,MMDs与基线相比的累积平均变化,以及根据患者总体变化印象量表(PGIC),在第12个月时,接受最初分配的治疗的患者中应答者的比例:共有 866 名患者接受了筛查,其中 245 人未通过筛查,621 人完成了筛查和基线期。在 621 名随机患者中(平均 [SD] 年龄为 41.3 [11.2] 岁;545 名女性 [87.8%];413 名 [66.5%] 在艾伦单抗组;208 名 [33.5%] 在 OMPM 组),523 名 (84.2%) 完成了治疗阶段,98 名 (15.8%) 中止了研究。第12个月时,与OMPM组相比,接受erenumab治疗的患者达到主要终点的人数明显更多(413人中有232人[56.2%] vs 208人中有35人[16.8%];几率比[OR],6.48;95% CI,4.28-9.82;P 结论和意义:这项随机临床试验的结果表明,与连续使用OMPM相比,对既往1次或2次预防治疗失败的EM患者尽早使用艾伦单抗能提供更好的持续疗效、安全性和依从性:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03927144。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Early Use of Erenumab vs Nonspecific Oral Migraine Preventives: The APPRAISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with migraine often cycle through multiple nonspecific preventive medications due to poor tolerability and/or inadequate efficacy leading to low adherence and increased disease burden.

Objective: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction between erenumab and nonspecific oral migraine preventive medications (OMPMs) in patients with episodic migraine (EM) who had previously failed 1 or 2 preventive treatments.

Design, setting, and participants: The 12-month prospective, interventional, global, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial comparing sustained benefit of 2 treatment paradigms (erenumab qm vs oral prophylactics) in adult episodic migraine patients (APPRAISE) trial was a 12-month open-label, multicenter, active-controlled, phase 4 randomized clinical trial conducted from May 15, 2019, to October 1, 2021. This pragmatic trial was conducted at 84 centers across 17 countries. Overall, participants 18 years or older with a 12-month or longer history of migraine, and 4 or more but fewer than 15 monthly migraine days (MMDs) were included.

Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive erenumab or OMPMs. Dose adjustment was permitted (label dependent).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients completing 1 year of the initially assigned treatment and achieving a reduction of 50% or greater from baseline in MMDs at month 12. Secondary end points included the cumulative mean change from baseline in MMDs during the treatment period and the proportion of responders according to the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale at month 12 for patients taking the initially assigned treatment.

Results: A total of 866 patients were screened, of whom 245 failed the screening and 621 completed the screening and baseline period. Of the 621 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 41.3 [11.2] years; 545 female [87.8%]; 413 [66.5%] in the erenumab group; 208 [33.5%] in the OMPM group), 523 (84.2%) completed the treatment phase, and 98 (15.8%) discontinued the study. At month 12, significantly more patients assigned to erenumab vs OMPM achieved the primary end point (232 of 413 [56.2%] vs 35 of 208 [16.8%]; odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% CI, 4.28-9.82; P <.001). Compared with OMPMs, treatment with erenumab showed higher responder rate (314 of 413 [76.0%] vs 39 of 208 [18.8%]; OR, 13.75; 95% CI, 9.08-20.83; P <.001) on the PGIC scale (≥5 at month 12). Significant reduction in cumulative average MMDs was reported with erenumab treatment vs OMPM treatment (-4.32 vs -2.65; treatment difference [SE]: -1.67 [0.35] days; P < .001). Substantially fewer patients in the erenumab arm compared with the OMPM arm switched medication (9 of 413 [2.2%] vs 72 of 208 [34.6%]) and discontinued treatment due to adverse events (12 of 408 [2.9%] vs 48 of 206 [23.3%]). No new safety signals were identified.

Conclusions and relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial demonstrated that earlier use of erenumab in patients with EM who failed 1 or 2 previous preventive treatments provided greater and sustained efficacy, safety, and adherence than continuous OMPM.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03927144.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA neurology
JAMA neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
41.90
自引率
1.70%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: JAMA Neurology is an international peer-reviewed journal for physicians caring for people with neurologic disorders and those interested in the structure and function of the normal and diseased nervous system. The Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry began publication in 1919 and, in 1959, became 2 separate journals: Archives of Neurology and Archives of General Psychiatry. In 2013, their names changed to JAMA Neurology and JAMA Psychiatry, respectively. JAMA Neurology is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications.
期刊最新文献
Deferiprone in Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Immediate or Delayed Statin in Acute Atherosclerotic Ischemia. Immediate or Delayed Statin in Acute Atherosclerotic Ischemia-Reply. Remembering the Physician's Humanity-Physicians Are Humans Too. Alzheimer Disease as a Clinical-Biological Construct-An International Working Group Recommendation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1