Christopher Lines

Efficacy and tolerability of MK-0974 (telcagepant), a new oral antagonist of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, compared with zolmitriptan for acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-treatment trial

BACKGROUND Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) probably has a role in migraine pathophysiology, and antagonism of its receptors might provide treatment without the vasoconstrictor effects of triptans. We aimed to assess the clinical profile of MK-0974 (telcagepant), an orally bioavailable antagonist of CGRP receptor. METHODS In a randomised, parallel-treatment, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial at 81 sites in the Europe and the USA, adults with migraine diagnosed by International Headache Society criteria treated moderate or severe attacks with either oral telcagepant 150 mg or 300 mg, zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo. The five co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, or absence of photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea at 2 h after treatment. Analysis was by the full analysis set and multiplicity was controlled for with a step-down closed-testing procedure. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00442936. FINDINGS 1380 patients were randomly assigned to receive telcagepant 150 mg (n=333) or 300 mg (354), zolmitriptan (345), or placebo (348). Telcagepant 300 mg was more effective than placebo for pain freedom (95 [27%] of 353 patients vs 33 [10%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), pain relief (194 [55%] of 353 vs 95 [28%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), and absences of phonophobia (204 [58%] of 353 vs 126 [37%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), photophobia (180 [51%] of 353 vs 99 [29%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), and nausea (229 [65%] of 352 vs 189 [55%] of 342 [p=0.0061]). Efficacy of telcagepant 300 mg and zolmitriptan 5 mg were much the same, and both were more effective than telcagepant 150 mg. Adverse events were recorded for 31% taking telcagepant 150 mg, 37% taking telcagepant 300 mg, 51% taking zolmitriptan 5 mg, and 32% taking placebo. INTERPRETATION Telcagepant 300 mg is effective as an acute treatment for migraine with efficacy comparable to that of zolmitriptan 5 mg, but with fewer associated adverse effects. FUNDING Merck Research Laboratories.

Rofecoxib No effect on Alzheimer’s disease in a 1-year, randomized, blinded, controlled study

BackgroundInflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and may be mediated via the cyclo-oxygenase–2 enzyme. This study sought to evaluate the effect of rofecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that selectively inhibits cyclo-oxygenase–2, in slowing the progression of dementia in patients with established AD. MethodsA double-blinded, multicenter trial was conducted in which 692 patients with mild or moderate AD aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to receive 25 mg rofecoxib or placebo daily for 12 months. The key efficacy measures were mean change from baseline at month 12 on the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) and score on the Clinician’s Interview Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC+). ResultsFour hundred eighty-one patients (70%) completed assessments and remained on treatment at 12 months. No significant differences between treatments were found on the mean change from baseline error score for the ADAS-cog (rofecoxib = 4.84; placebo = 5.44; difference = −0.60) or mean score on the CIBIC+ (rofecoxib = 4.90; placebo = 4.87; difference = 0.03) over 12 months. This result persisted after adjusting for severity of dementia at baseline, presence of the APOE-&egr;4 allele, and donepezil use. Secondary analyses did not reveal any significant differences on any other measures. ConclusionThe failure of selective cyclo-oxygenase–2 inhibition to slow the progression of AD may indicate either that the disease process is too advanced to modify in patients with established dementia or that cyclo-oxygenase–2 does not play a significant role in the pathogenesis of the disorder.

A randomized, double-blind, study of rofecoxib in patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Inflammatory mechanisms have been implicated in Alzheimers disease (AD) and might be mediated via the COX-2 enzyme. Previous studies with the selective COX-2 inhibitors, rofecoxib and celecoxib, have shown that they do not alter the progression of AD. We conducted a double-blind study to investigate whether rofecoxib could delay a diagnosis of AD in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), a group with an expected annual AD diagnosis rate of 10–15%. MCI patients ⩾65 years were randomized to rofecoxib 25 mg (N=725) or placebo (N=732) daily for up to 4 years. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD. The estimated annual AD diagnosis rate was lower than the anticipated 10–15%: 6.4% in the rofecoxib group vs 4.5% in the placebo group (rofecoxib : placebo hazard ratio=1.46 (95% CI: 1.09, 1.94), p=0.011). Analyses of secondary end points, including measures of cognition (eg the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog)) and global function (eg the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)), did not demonstrate differences between treatment groups. There was also no consistent evidence that rofecoxib differed from placebo in post hoc analyses comparing ADAS-Cog and CDR-sum of boxes scores in overlapping subgroups of patients who had Mini Mental State Exam scores of 24–26 in the present MCI study and in a previous AD treatment study with a similar design. The results from this MCI study did not support the hypothesis that rofecoxib would delay a diagnosis of AD. In conjunction with the lack of effects observed in previous AD studies, the findings suggest that inhibition of COX-2 is not a useful therapeutic approach in AD.

Orexin receptor antagonism for treatment of insomnia A randomized clinical trial of suvorexant

ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the utility of orexin receptor antagonism as a novel approach to treating insomnia. Methods: We evaluated suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist, for treating patients with primary insomnia in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period (4 weeks per period) crossover polysomnography study. Patients received suvorexant (10 mg [n = 62], 20 mg [n = 61], 40 mg [n = 59], or 80 mg [n = 61]) in one period and placebo (n = 249) in the other. Polysomnography was performed on night 1 and at the end of week 4 of each period. The coprimary efficacy end points were sleep efficiency on night 1 and end of week 4. Secondary end points were wake after sleep onset and latency to persistent sleep. Results: Suvorexant showed significant (p values <0.01) dose-related improvements vs placebo on the coprimary end points of sleep efficiency at night 1 and end of week 4. Dose-related effects were also observed for sleep induction (latency to persistent sleep) and maintenance (wake after sleep onset). Suvorexant was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: The data suggest that orexin receptor antagonism offers a novel approach to treating insomnia. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that suvorexant improves sleep efficiency over 4 weeks in nonelderly adult patients with primary insomnia.

Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant for the acute treatment of migraine

Background: The neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in migraine pathophysiology. In this large phase 3 clinical trial, we sought to confirm the efficacy of telcagepant, the first orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonist. Methods: Adults with migraine with or without aura (International Headache Society criteria) treated a moderate or severe attack with oral telcagepant 50 mg (n = 177), 150 mg (n = 381), 300 mg (n = 371), or placebo (n = 365) in a randomized, double-blind trial. The 5 co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, and absence of photophobia, absence of phonophobia, and absence of nausea, all at 2 hours postdose. The key secondary endpoint was 2–24 hour sustained pain freedom. The prespecified primary efficacy analyses evaluated the 150 mg and 300 mg groups; the 50-mg group was included on an exploratory basis to further characterize the dose response but was not prespecified for analysis. Tolerability was assessed by adverse experience reports. Results: Telcagepant 300 mg was more effective (p ≤ 0.001) than placebo on all primary endpoints and the key secondary endpoint, as was telcagepant 150 mg (p ≤ 0.05). Telcagepant 300 mg showed a slight numeric advantage over telcagepant 150 mg on most measures. Telcagepant 50 mg values were numerically intermediate between placebo and telcagepant 150 mg and 300 mg. The percentages of patients with adverse experiences were 32.2% for telcagepant 50 mg, 32.0% for telcagepant 150 mg, 36.2% for telcagepant 300 mg, and 32.2% for placebo. Conclusions: This study confirmed previous findings that telcagepant 300 mg was effective at relieving pain and other migraine symptoms at 2 hours and providing sustained pain freedom up to 24 hours. In this study, telcagepant 150 mg was also effective. Telcagepant was generally well tolerated.

Randomized controlled trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist MK-3207 in the acute treatment of migraine.

Background: This study evaluated the CGRP receptor antagonist MK-3207 for acute treatment of migraine. Methods: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, two-stage adaptive study with two interim efficacy analyses to facilitate optimal dose selection. Migraine patients were initially randomized to MK-3207 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 50 and 100 mg or placebo to treat a moderate/severe migraine. One or more doses were to be discontinued based on the first interim analysis and a lower or higher dose could be added based on the second interim analysis. The primary endpoint was two-hour pain freedom. Results: A total of 547 patients took study medication. After the first interim analysis, the two lowest MK-3207 doses (2.5, 5 mg) were identified as showing insufficient efficacy. Per the pre-specified adaptive design decision rule, only the 2.5-mg group was discontinued and the five highest doses (5, 10, 20, 50, 100 mg) were continued into the second stage. After the second interim efficacy analysis, a 200 mg dose was added due to insufficient efficacy at the top three (20, 50, 100 mg) doses. A positive dose-response trend was demonstrated when data were combined across all MK-3207 doses for two-hour pain freedom (p < .001). The pairwise difference versus placebo for two-hour pain freedom was significant for 200 mg (p < .001) and nominally significant for 100 mg and 10 mg (p < .05). The incidence of adverse events appeared comparable between active treatment groups and placebo, and did not appear to increase with increasing dose. Conclusions: MK-3207 was effective and generally well tolerated in the acute treatment of migraine.

Crossover Comparison of Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg Versus Sumatriptan 25 mg and 50 mg in Migraine

Rizatriptan is a selective 5‐HT1B/1D receptor agonist with rapid oral absorption and early onset of action in the acute treatment of migraine. This double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover study compared rizatriptan 5 mg versus sumatriptan 25 mg, and rizatriptan 10 mg versus sumatriptan 50 mg. A total of 1329 patients were allocated to one of five groups for treatment of two attacks: rizatriptan 5 mg/sumatriptan 25 mg; sumatriptan 25 mg/rizatriptan 5 mg; rizatriptan 10 mg/sumatriptan 50 mg; sumatriptan 50 mg/rizatriptan 10 mg; placebo/placebo. For each attack, patients rated headache severity, presence of associated symptoms, and functional disability prior to dosing and at intervals through 4 hours thereafter. Patients also rated their satisfaction with medication. Rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg provided faster relief of headache pain and greater relief of migraine symptoms than the 25‐mg and 50‐mg doses of sumatriptan, respectively. The response to rizatriptan was better than sumatriptan on additional measures including functional disability and satisfaction with medication. All active treatments were highly effective compared to placebo and acted as early as 30 minutes after dosing. All active treatments were well‐tolerated and showed comparable safety profiles.

Effects of the neurokinin1 receptor antagonist aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone and methylprednisolone

Aprepitant is a neurokinin1 receptor antagonist that, in combination with a corticosteroid and a 5‐hydroxytryptamine3 receptor antagonist, has been shown to be very effective in the prevention of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting. At doses used for the management of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and vomiting, aprepitant is a moderate inhibitor of cytochrome P4503A4 and may be used in conjunction with corticosteroids such as dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, which are substrates of cytochrome P4503A4. The effects of aprepitant on the these 2 corticosteroids were evaluated.

Randomized controlled trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist telcagepant for migraine prevention

Objective: To evaluate whether the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist telcagepant might be effective for migraine prevention. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00797667), patients experiencing 3–14 migraine days during a 4-week baseline were randomized to telcagepant 140 mg, telcagepant 280 mg, or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by mean monthly headache days and migraine/probable migraine days (headache plus ≥1 associated symptom). Results: The trial was terminated following a recommendation from the Safety Monitoring Board due to hepatotoxicity concerns. At termination, the planned 660 patients had been randomized, 656 had been treated with ≥1 dose of study medication, and 14 had completed the trial. The mean treatment duration was 48–50 days. Thirteen patients, all in the telcagepant groups, had an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation ≥3× the upper limit of normal and 7 of these also had an aspartate aminotransferase elevation ≥3× the upper limit of normal. Two patients had very high symptomatic transaminase elevations that occurred within 2–6 weeks of treatment initiation and resolved after treatment discontinuation. The originally planned efficacy analysis over 12 weeks was not performed due to limited data at later time points, but there was evidence that telcagepant resulted in a larger reduction from baseline than placebo for mean monthly headache days (month 1: 140 mg = −2.9, 280 mg = −3.1, placebo = −1.7; p < 0.05) and migraine/probable migraine days (month 1: 140 mg = −2.7, 280 mg = −3.0, placebo = −1.6; p < 0.05). Conclusions: These data suggest a potential role for CGRP receptor antagonism in migraine prophylaxis. However, the observed aminotransferase elevations do not support the use of telcagepant for daily administration. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that in patients with migraine, telcagepant taken daily reduces headache days by 1.4 days per month compared to placebo and causes 2.5% of patients to have elevations of serum ALT levels.

A multinational randomized, controlled, clinical trial of etoricoxib in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis [ISRCTN25142273]

BackgroundEtoricoxib is a highly selective COX-2 inhibitor which was evaluated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsDouble-blind, randomized, placebo and active comparator-controlled, 12-week study conducted at 67 sites in 28 countries. Eligible patients were chronic NSAID users who demonstrated a clinical worsening of arthritis upon withdrawal of prestudy NSAIDs. Patients received either placebo, etoricoxib 90 mg once daily, or naproxen 500 mg twice daily (2:2:1 allocation ratio). Primary efficacy measures included direct assessment of arthritis by counts of tender and swollen joints, and patient and investigator global assessments of disease activity. Key secondary measures included the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire, patient global assessment of pain, and the percentage of patients who achieved ACR20 responder criteria response (a composite of pain, inflammation, function, and global assessments). Tolerability was assessed by adverse events and routine laboratory evaluations.Results1171 patients were screened, 891 patients were randomized (N = 357 for placebo, N = 353 for etoricoxib, and N = 181 for naproxen), and 687 completed 12 weeks of treatment (N = 242 for placebo, N = 294 for etoricoxib, and N = 151 for naproxen). Compared with patients receiving placebo, patients receiving etoricoxib and naproxen showed significant improvements in all efficacy endpoints (p<0.05). Treatment responses were similar between the etoricoxib and naproxen groups for all endpoints. The percentage of patients who achieved ACR20 responder criteria response was 41% in the placebo group, 59% in the etoricoxib group, and 58% in the naproxen group. Etoricoxib and naproxen were both generally well tolerated.ConclusionsIn this study, etoricoxib 90 mg once daily was more effective than placebo and similar in efficacy to naproxen 500 mg twice daily for treating patients with RA over 12 weeks. Etoricoxib 90 mg was generally well tolerated in RA patients.