Challenges and Lessons Learned in Autologous Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Development from a Statistical Perspective.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a human gene therapy product where T cells from a patient are genetically modified to enable them to recognize desired target antigen(s) more effectively. In recent years, promising antitumor activity has been seen with autologous CAR T cells. Since 2017, six CAR T-cell therapies for the treatment of hematological malignancies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite the rapid progress of CAR T-cell therapies, considerable statistical challenges still exist for this category of products across all phases of clinical development that need to be addressed. These include (but not limited to) dose finding strategy, implementation of the estimand framework, use of real-world data in contextualizing single-arm CAR T trials, analysis of safety data and long-term follow-up studies. This paper is the first step in summarizing and addressing these statistical hurdles based on the development of the six approved CAR T-cell products.

Effect of erenumab on the reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine in an Asian population: A post hoc analysis of the DRAGON study.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. It has been proven to be safe and efficacious in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) as demonstrated in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials including patients from Europe, Japan, and the United States. Reversion from CM to EM, as indicated by a reduction in the frequency of headache days, is an important indicator for efficacy outcome, though it has not been analyzed widely in patients with CM to date. OBJECTIVE: Primary results of the DRAGON study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM from China and other Asian countries. This post hoc analysis evaluated the rate of reversion from CM to EM in the overall population and in subgroups of patients defined by baseline demographic and clinical characteristics (age, body mass index, gender, prior preventive treatment failure, medication overuse status, and disease duration). METHODS: Reversion from CM to EM was defined as a reduction in headache frequency to < 45 headache days over the 12 weeks of the double-blind treatment period. In addition, migraine-related disability and disease impact on functional impairment were assessed within each treatment group in reverters and non-reverters using the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6), Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), and modified Migraine Disability Assessment (mMIDAS). RESULTS: Overall, 557 patients with CM were randomized to monthly erenumab 70 mg (n = 279) or placebo (n = 278), of whom 52.3% (146 of 279) treated with erenumab reverted from CM to EM compared to 41.0% (114 of 278) in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.2; p = 0.007). Treatment with erenumab resulted in a greater mean change (standard error) from baseline in the HIT-6 total score for reverters versus non-reverters compared to placebo (erenumab: -9.5 [0.6] vs. -5.1 [0.5]; placebo: -8.9 [0.7] vs. -4.9 [0.5]). A similar pattern was observed for mMIDAS score in erenumab treatment groups versus placebo (erenumab: -22.1 [1.2] vs. -6.3 [1.8]; placebo: -19.9 [1.3] vs. -7.9 [1.6]). Substantial improvements were reported in MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores in reverters versus non-reverters in erenumab treatment groups (MPFID-PI: -5.9 [0.3] vs. -1.9 [0.6]; MPFID-EA: -7.9 [0.4] vs. -3.4 [0.6]) and in placebo (MPFID-PI: -5.4 [0.4] vs. -1.0 [0.5]; MPFID-EA: -7.1 [0.5] vs. -3.2 [0.5]). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients treated with erenumab reverted from CM to EM compared to patients treated with placebo. The reversion from CM to EM was reflected by the greater improvements in patient-reported outcomes in the erenumab group.

Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Participants With Episodic Migraine in Whom 2-4 Prior Preventive Treatments Had Failed: LIBERTY 3-Year Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The LIBERTY study assessed the efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine (EM) and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. The results have been presented after 3 years of erenumab exposure in its open-label extension phase (OLEP). METHODS: Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could enter the OLEP and receive 140 mg of erenumab once monthly for 3 years. The main outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), the mean MMD change from baseline, and tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 240/246 (97.6%) participants entered the OLEP and 168/240 (70.0%) completed the study (85/118 continuing erenumab [n = 1 lost during follow-up]; 83/122 switching from placebo [n = 2 lost during follow-up]). In the overall population, 79/151 participants (52.3%) with valid data points achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs at week 168 (i.e., responders). In the continuous erenumab group, 35/117 participants (29.9%) were ≥50% responders at week 12 of the DBTP and 26/35 (74.3%) remained ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of the 82/117 participants (70.1%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the continuous erenumab group, 17/82 (20.7%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of 103/120 participants (85.8%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the placebo-erenumab group, 42/103 (40.8%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits after switching to erenumab. Overall, the mean (SD) MMD change from baseline showed sustained improvement over 3 years (-4.4 [3.9] days at week 168). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (per 100 person-years) were nasopharyngitis (28.8), influenza (7.5), and back pain (5.8). Overall, 9.6% (3.9 per 100 person-years) and 6.7% (2.7 per 100 person-years) of participants reported events of treatment-emergent hypertension and constipation, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile remained consistent with earlier studies. DISCUSSION: Erenumab (140 mg) showed sustained efficacy over 3 years in participants with EM and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. No new safety signals were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03096834.

A phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study of erenumab for the prevention of chronic migraine in patients from Asia: the DRAGON study.

ABSTACT: BACKGROUND: DRAGON was a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study which evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine (CM) from Asia not adequately represented in the global pivotal CM study. METHODS: DRAGON study was conducted across 9 Asian countries or regions including mainland China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Patients (N = 557) with CM (aged 18-65 years) were randomised (1:1) to receive once-monthly subcutaneous erenumab 70 mg or matching placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline to the last 4 weeks of the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP). Secondary endpoints included achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in MMD, change in monthly acute headache medication days, modified migraine disability assessment (mMIDAS), and safety. Study was powered for the primary endpoint of change from baseline in MMD. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean (SD) age was 41.7 (± 10.9) years, and 81.5% (n = 454) patients were women. The mean migraine duration was 18.0 (± 11.6) years, and the mean MMD was 19.2 (± 5.4). 97.8% (n = 545) randomised patients completed the DBTP. Overall, demographics and baseline characteristics were balanced between the erenumab and placebo groups except for a slightly higher proportion of women in the placebo group. At Week 12, the adjusted mean change from baseline in MMD was - 8.2 days for erenumab and - 6.6 days for placebo, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (adjusted mean difference vs placebo: - 1.57 [95%CI: - 2.83, - 0.30]; P = 0.015). A greater proportion of patients treated with erenumab achieved ≥ 50% reduction in MMD versus placebo (47.0% vs 36.7%, P = 0.014). At Week 12, greater reductions in monthly acute headache medication days (- 5.34 vs - 4.66) and mMIDAS scores (- 14.67 vs - 12.93) were observed in patients treated with erenumab versus placebo. Safety and tolerability profile of erenumab was comparable to placebo, except the incidence of constipation (8.6% for erenumab vs 3.2% for placebo). CONCLUSION: DRAGON study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of erenumab 70 mg in patients with CM from Asia. No new safety signals were observed during the DBTP compared with the previous trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03867201.

Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate individual and group long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) for whom 2-4 prior preventatives had failed. METHODS: Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could continue into an open-label extension phase (OLEP) receiving erenumab 140 mg monthly for up to 3 years. Main outcomes assessed at week 112 were: ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) as group responder rate and individual responder rates, MMD change from baseline, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Overall 240/246 (97.6%) entered the OLEP (118 continuing erenumab, 122 switching from placebo). In total 181/240 (75.4%) reached 112 weeks, 24.6% discontinued, mainly due to lack of efficacy (44.0%), participant decision (37.0%) and adverse events (AEs; 12.0%). The ≥50% responder rate was 57.2% (99/173) at 112 weeks. Of ≥50% responders at the end of the DBTP, 36/52 (69.2%) remained responders at ≥50% and 22/52 (42.3%) at >80% of visits. Of the non-responders at the end of the DBTP, 60/185 (32.4%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half the visits and 24/185 (13.0%) converted to ≥50% responders in >80% of visits. Change from baseline at 112 weeks in mean (SD) MMD was -4.2 (5.0) days. Common AEs (≥10%) were nasopharyngitis, influenza and back pain. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy was sustained over 112 weeks in individuals with difficult-to-treat EM for whom 2-4 prior migraine preventives had failed. Erenumab treatment was safe and well tolerated, in-line with previous studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03096834.

Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the tolerability and efficacy of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, to topiramate for migraine prophylaxis in adults. METHODS: HER-MES was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial conducted in 82 sites in Germany. Patients with ≥4 migraine days per month and naïve to study drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus topiramate placebo (erenumab group) or oral topiramate at the individual dose with optimal efficacy (50-100 mg/day) plus erenumab placebo (topiramate group).The primary endpoint was medication discontinuation due to an adverse event during the double-blind phase. The proportion of patients that achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days during the last 3 months of the double-blind phase was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomised (from 22 February 2019 to 29 July, 2020) and 95.1% completed the study. In the erenumab group, 10.6% discontinued medication due to adverse events compared to 38.9% in the topiramate group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.27; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline with erenumab (55.4% vs. 31.2%; odds ratio 2.76; 95% confidence interval 2.06-3.71; p < 0.001). No new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab demonstrated a favourable tolerability and efficacy profile compared to topiramate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03828539.

Randomised, controlled trial of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine in patients from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America: The EMPOwER study.

OBJECTIVE: EMPOwER, a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 study, evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. METHODS: Randomised patients (N = 900) received monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or 140 mg (3:3:2) for 3 months. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in monthly migraine days at Month 3. Other endpoints included achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days, change in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days, patient-reported outcomes, and safety assessment. RESULTS: At baseline, mean (standard deviation) age was 37.5 (9.9) years, 81.9% were women, and monthly migraine days was 8.2 (2.8). At Month 3, change from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was -3.1, -4.2, and -4.8 days for placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively, with a statistically significant difference for erenumab versus placebo (P = 0.002 [70 mg], P < 0.001 [140 mg]). Both erenumab doses were also significantly superior to placebo on all secondary endpoints, including the proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days, change from baseline in monthly acute migraine-specific medication treatment days and change from baseline in the Headache Impact Test-6™ scores. The safety profile of erenumab was comparable with placebo; no new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine from Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America met all primary and secondary endpoints. A consistent numerical benefit was observed with erenumab 140 mg versus erenumab 70 mg across all efficacy endpoints. These findings extend evidence of erenumab's efficacy and safety to patients under-represented in previous trials.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03333109.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab: Results From 64 Weeks of the LIBERTY Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the efficacy and safety of erenumab among episodic migraine (EM) patients who were unsuccessful on 2-4 preventive treatments observed at week 64 of Open-Label Extension Phase (OLEP) of the LIBERTY study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03096834). METHODS: The OLEP evaluating monthly erenumab 140 mg for 3 years, enrolled 240 patients who completed the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of 12 weeks during which they received placebo or erenumab 140 mg subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks as monotherapy. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated through the initial 52 weeks of OLEP (from DBTP baseline to total 64 weeks) in the overall population, patients receiving erenumab in DBTP, and patients from DBTP placebo arm who switched to erenumab in OLEP. Endpoints included reduction of ≥50% in monthly migraine days (MMD) from DBTP baseline and change in MMD from DBTP baseline, Headache Impact Test, and Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (Physical Impairment and Everyday Activities) scores. RESULTS: Altogether, the week 52 visit of the OLEP was completed by 204/240 (85.0%) patients. Among patients continuing erenumab, the 50% responder rate increase from 29.9% at weeks 9%-12% to 44.3% at week 61-64. The 50% responder rate in patients who initiated erenumab in the OLEP remained higher in the OLEP (50.0% at week 61-64) than during DBTP (14.2% at weeks 9-12) compared to patients in continuous erenumab arm. In the OLEP, the 50% responder rate for the overall population increased from weeks 13-16 until weeks 37-40 and then remained stable through weeks 61-64. Patients treated with erenumab in DBTP showed sustained effects on all efficacy outcomes; those initiating erenumab in the OLEP demonstrated continued improvement from week 13 onward. Adverse events (AEs) were reported, considering both treatment groups, by ∼80.8% (serious AEs [SAEs] by 6.7%); 76.3% (5.9%) in the continuing erenumab arm; and 85.2% (7.4%) in those starting erenumab in OLEP. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with EM who were unsuccessful on 2-4 prior preventive treatments, the LIBERTY study demonstrated sustained efficacy on erenumab monotherapy treatment through 64 weeks in both treatment arms. Safety of erenumab was consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: The current study provides Class IV evidence on data from patients with episodic migraine, that erenumab is safe and provides sustained efficacy at 52 weeks. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03096834.

Effect of erenumab on functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful: results from the LIBERTY study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of erenumab on patient-reported, functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine (EM) in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful from the Phase 3b LIBERTY study. METHODS: As previously reported, 246 patients with EM with 2-4 prior failed preventives were randomised 1:1 to subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. This analysis evaluated Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scores at Week 12. P values were nominal without multiplicity adjustment. RESULTS: Erenumab significantly improved MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores versus placebo (treatment difference (TD) (95% CI) MPFID-PI: -3.5 (-5.7 to -1.2) (p=0.003); MPFID-EA: -3.9 (-6.1 to -1.7)) (p<0.001) at 12 weeks. Patients on erenumab were more likely to have a ≥5-point reduction in MPFID score (OR vs placebo (95% CI) MPFID-EA: 2.1 (1.2 to 3.6); MPFID-PI: 2.5 (1.4 to 4.5)). A similar trend was observed for HIT-6 (TD: -3.0; p<0.001); significantly higher proportions of patients on erenumab reported a ≥5-point reduction (OR (95% CI): 2.4 (1.4 to 4.1)). In three out of four WPAI domains, erenumab showed improvement versus placebo. CONCLUSION: At 12 weeks, erenumab was efficacious on functional outcomes in patients with EM in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03096834.

Association between effective hepatic blood flow and the severity and prognosis of hepatitis B virus-related acute on chronic liver failure.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic inflammation resulted in hepatocyte necrosis and microcirculatory dysfunction in acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) with cirrhosis or not. The influence of effective hepatic blood flow (EHBF) on the severity of liver failure has not been fully elucidated. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between the EHBF and the severity and the prediction of 90-day mortality rate of hepatitis B virus-related ACLF (HBV-ACLF). METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients hospitalized for HBV-ACLF or decompensated cirrhosis and who underwent an indocyanine green (ICG) clearance test between June 2016 and July 2018 were enrolled. EHBF was measured by the ICG clearance test and patients were categorized into the ACLF without cirrhosis (HBV-ACLF-no-Cir), ACLF with cirrhosis (HBV-ACLF-Cir) and decompensated cirrhosis (HBV-De-Cir). RESULTS: A total of 522 patients (HBV-ACLF-no-Cir: 84, HBV-ACLF-Cir: 111 and HBV-De-Cir: 327) were enrolled. The mean EHBF in the HBV-De-Cir was significantly higher than that in the HBV-ACLF-no-Cir and HBV-ACLF-Cir (0.36 vs. 0.21 vs. 0.20 L/min, P < 0.001). EHBF was significantly correlated with the total bilirubin, prothrombin activity and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) in the HBV-ACLF-no-Cir. The predicted 90-day mortality rate using the MELD, EHBF, ICG-retention rate at 15 min (R15%) and EHBF-R15% scores were similar. The sensitivity and specificity of the EHBF varied between 68.5-80.2% and 45.8-73.7%, respectively. The EHBF-MELD score had the highest specificity. CONCLUSION: EHBF was significantly lower in the patients with ACLF compared to decompensated cirrhosis. The EHBF were closely related to the severity of HBV-ACLF and can be used for predicting the 90-day mortality rate of HBV-ACLF.

Quantitative Safety Monitoring in Clinical Trials: Application of Multiple Statistical Methodologies for Infrequent Events.

BACKGROUND: There are limited quantitative approaches for evaluating rare safety outcomes from controlled clinical trials in either a blinded or unblinded setting. This manuscript demonstrates an application of three statistical methods for quantitative safety monitoring that can be implemented during any phase of a clinical trial, including open-label extension studies. METHODS: An interactive safety monitoring (iSM) tool was developed using R language in the publicly available R-Shiny app and was implemented for three statistical methods of quantitative safety monitoring. These methods are sequential probability ratio test (SPRT), maximized SPRT (MaxSPRT), and Bayesian posterior probability threshold (BPPT). The iSM tool evaluated specific safety signals that incorporated pre-specified background rates or reference risk ratios. RESULTS: Two sets of blinded clinical trial data were used for case studies to demonstrate the use the iSM tool. Two particular adverse events, myocardial infarction (MI) and serious infection, were monitored. Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of pre-specified parameters. It showed that after adjusting for exposure, the BPPT and MaxSPRT yielded similar results in identifying a pre-specified signals while the SPRT method failed to detect such signals. CONCLUSION: Statistical methods shown for the case studies, as well as the application of the user-friendly iSM tool, greatly enhance the quantitative monitoring of safety events of interest in ongoing clinical trials The BPPT and MaxSPRT methods seem more sensitive in picking-up early signals than the SPRT method when the number of safety events is small.

The spectrum of response to erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and subgroup analysis of patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of erenumab across the spectrum of response thresholds (≥50%, ≥75%, 100%) based on monthly migraine days (MMD) reduction in patients with chronic migraine from a 12-week, randomized study (NCT02066415). METHODS: Patients (n = 667) received (3:2:2) placebo or erenumab 70/140 mg once-monthly. The proportion of patients achieving a given response threshold was assessed. A post-hoc analysis was conducted to contextualize the actual treatment benefit in subgroups of patients achieving (or not) specified response thresholds. Outcome measures included MMD, acute migraine-specific medication treatment days (MSMD) and disability. RESULTS: The proportion of patients responding to erenumab exceeded that of placebo at the ≥50% and ≥75% response thresholds. At month 3, 39.9% and 41.2% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥50% response versus placebo (23.5%). Similarly, at month 3, 17.0% and 20.9% of patients on erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively, achieved ≥75% response versus placebo (7.8%). Compared with the overall erenumab-treated population (change in MMD: -6.6 [both 70 and 140 mg]), ≥50% responders showed MMD reductions of -12.2/-12.5 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -2.6/-2.2 for those not achieving ≥50% response. ≥75% responders showed MMD reductions of -13.9/-14.8 for 70 mg/140 mg versus -5.0/-4.3 for those not achieving ≥75% response. Relative improvements in MSMD and disability were observed in responders versus overall erenumab-treated population. CONCLUSION: For erenumab-treated patients achieving ≥50% response, the actual reduction in MMD was almost twice that of the overall population. These findings provide context for setting realistic expectations regarding actual treatment benefit experienced by patients responding to treatment.

Benefit-risk assessment of erenumab and current migraine prophylactic treatments using the likelihood of being helped or harmed.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the benefit-risk profile of erenumab relative to other therapies approved for migraine prophylaxis and available in the majority of European countries. METHODS: Trials were identified via a published systematic literature review updated to December 2017 using MEDLINE. Erenumab's pivotal trials study reports were also included (NCT02066415, NCT02456740). From these sources, ≥ 50% responder rates and discontinuations due to adverse events were extracted to generate numbers needed to treat and harm and likelihood of being helped or harmed, a quantitative benefit-risk measure. RESULTS: Eleven articles (nine randomized clinical trials) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Low numbers needed to treat (range: 4-13) were observed for most treatments, while numbers needed to harm showed substantial differences (erenumab's higher numbers needed to harm indicating better tolerability). In chronic and episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed for erenumab 70 mg were 143 and 167, and 42 and 167 for erenumab 140 mg. Likelihoods of being helped or harmed in chronic migraine were 2 and 3 for topiramate (two studies) and 4 for onabotulinumtoxinA. In episodic migraine, likelihoods of being helped or harmed were 2 for topiramate and 2 for propranolol. CONCLUSIONS: While all prophylactic treatments were more likely to help than harm (likelihood of being helped or harmed > 1), erenumab showed a likelihood of being helped or harmed of high magnitude, supporting its favorable benefit-risk profile across the entire migraine frequency spectrum, in contrast with other prophylactic treatments.

Early onset of efficacy with erenumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and increased the likelihood of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction at all monthly assessment points tested in 2 pivotal trials in episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). Early efficacy of migraine preventive medications is an important treatment characteristic to patients. Delays in achievement of efficacy can result in failed adherence. The objective of these post-hoc analyses were to evaluate efficacy in the first 4 weeks after initial subcutaneous administration of erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo. METHODS: There is no generally accepted methodology to measure onset of action for migraine preventive medications. We used a comprehensive approach with data from both studies to evaluate change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD), achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD, and proportion of patients experiencing migraine measured on a daily basis. The 7-day moving averages were overlaid with observed data. RESULTS: In both studies (EM: N = 955; CM: N = 667), there was evidence of onset of efficacy of erenumab vs. placebo during the first week of treatment, which in some cases reached nominal significance. For EM the changes in WMD were (least squares mean [LSM] [95% CI]): placebo, - 0.1 (- 0.3, 0.0); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.3 (- 0.5, - 0.2) p = 0.130; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.6 (- 0.7, - 0.4) p < 0.001. For CM the changes were: placebo, - 0.5 (- 0.8, - 0.3); erenumab 70 mg, - 0.9 (- 1.2, - 0.7) p = 0.047; erenumab 140 mg, - 0.8 (- 1.1, - 0.5) p = 0.18. Achievement of ≥ 50% reduction in WMD was observed as early as Week 1 (adjusted OR [95% CI] erenumab vs placebo) in EM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.3 (1.0, 1.9) p = 0.097; erenumab 140 mg, 2.0 (1.4, 2.7) p < 0.001. A similar outcome was observed for CM: erenumab 70 mg, 1.8 (1.1, 2.8) p = 0.011; erenumab 140 mg, 1.9 (1.2, 2.9) p = 0.009. Seven-day moving averages of observed data showed each treatment arm differed from placebo by Week 1 (OR [95% CI]): in EM Day 3 for erenumab 140 mg, 0.7 (0.5, 1.0) p = 0.031 and at Day 7 for 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) p = 0.002; in CM: Day 6 for erenumab 70 mg, 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) p = 0.022 and at Day 7 for 140 mg, 0.7 (0.4, 1.0); p = 0.038. CONCLUSION: Erenumab showed early onset of efficacy with separation from placebo within the first week of treatment in both chronic and episodic migraine patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine in whom two-to-four previous preventive treatments were unsuccessful: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: A substantial proportion of patients with migraine does not respond to, or cannot tolerate, oral preventive treatments. Erenumab is a novel CGRP-receptor antibody with preventive efficacy in migraine. We assessed its efficacy and tolerability in patients with episodic migraine in whom previous treatment with two-to-four migraine preventives had been unsuccessful. METHODS: LIBERTY was a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised study at 59 sites in 16 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18-65 years and had a history of episodic migraine with or without aura for at least 12 months, had migraine for an average of 4-14 days per month during the 3 months before screening, and had been treated unsuccessfully (in terms of either efficacy or tolerability, or both) with between two and four preventive treatments. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either erenumab 140 mg (via two 70 mg injections) or placebo every 4 weeks subcutaneously for 12 weeks. Randomisation was by interactive response technology and was stratified by monthly frequency of migraine headache (4-7 vs 8-14 migraine days per month) during the baseline phase. Cenduit generated the randomisation list and assigned participants to groups. Participants, investigators, people doing various assessments, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a 50% or greater reduction in the mean number of monthly migraine days during weeks 9-12. Efficacy was measured in the full analysis set, which included all randomly assigned patients who started their assigned treatment and completed at least one post-baseline monthly migraine day measurement. Safety and tolerability were assessed by recording adverse events and by physical examination, assessment of vital signs, clinical laboratory assessments, and electrocardiography. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03096834. The trial is closed to new participants, but the open-label extension phase is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Oct 27, 2017, 246 participants were randomly assigned, 121 to the erenumab group and 125 to the placebo group. 95 of 246 (39%) participants had previously unsuccessfully tried two preventive drugs, 93 (38%) had tried three, and 56 (23%) had tried four. At week 12, 36 (30%) patients in the erenumab had a 50% or greater reduction from baseline in the mean number of monthly migraine days, compared with 17 (14%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 2·7 [95% CI 1·4-5·2]; p=0·002). The tolerability and safety profiles of erenumab and placebo were similar. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was injection site pain, which occurred in seven (6%) participants in both groups. INTERPRETATION: Compared with placebo, erenumab was efficacious in patients with episodic migraine who previously did not respond to or tolerate between two and four previous migraine preventive treatments. Erenumab might be an option for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine who have high unmet needs and few treatment options. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma.

A Bayesian Meta-analysis Method for Estimating Risk Difference of Rare Events.

Bayesian meta-analysis has been more frequently utilized for synthesizing safety and efficacy information to support landmark decision-making due to its flexibility of incorporating prior information and availability of computing software. However, when the outcome is binary and the events are rare, where event counts can be zero, conventional meta-analysis methods including Bayesian methods may not work well. Several methods have been proposed to tackle this issue but the prior knowledge of event rate was not utilized to increase precision of risk difference estimates. To better estimate risk differences, we propose a new Bayesian method, Beta prior BInomial model for Risk Differences (B-BIRD), which takes into account the prior information of rare events. B-BIRD is illustrated using a real data set of 48 clinical trials about a type 2 diabetes drug. In simulation studies, it performs well in low event rate settings.

Establishment and Validation of Prognostic Nomograms for Endemic Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to establish an effective prognostic nomogram with or without plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV DNA) for nondisseminated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). METHODS: The nomogram was based on a retrospective study of 4630 patients who underwent radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2007 to 2009. The predictive accuracy and discriminative ability of the nomogram were determined by a concordance index (C-index) and calibration curve and were compared with EBV DNA and the current staging system. The results were validated using bootstrap resampling and a prospective cohort study on 1819 patients consecutively enrolled from 2011 to 2012 at the same institution. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Independent factors derived from multivariable analysis of the primary cohort to predict recurrence were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), T stage, N stage, plasma EBV DNA, pretreatment high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and hemoglobin level (HGB), which were all assembled into the nomogram with (nomogram B) or without EBV DNA (nomogram A). The calibration curve for the probability of recurrence showed that the nomogram-based predictions were in good agreement with actual observations. The C-index of nomogram B for predicting recurrence was 0.728 (P < .001), which was statistically higher than the C-index values for nomogram A (0.690), EBV DNA (0.680), and the current staging system (0.609). The C-index of nomogram B (0.730) and nomogram A (0.681) remained higher for predicting recurrence among patients treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (P < .001). The results were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed nomogram with or without plasma EBV DNA resulted in more accurate prognostic prediction for NPC patients.

Elevated high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels predict decreased survival for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients in the intensity-modulated radiotherapy era.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to clarify the prognostic utility of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients in the Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this observational study, 1,589 non-metastatic NPC patients treated with IMRT were recruited. Blood samples were collected before treatment for examination of hs-CRP levels. We evaluated the association of pretreatment hs-CRP levels with overall survival rate (OS), progression free survival rate (PFS), locoregional relapse free survival rate (LRFS) and distant metastasis free survival rate (DMFS). RESULTS: Baseline hs-CRP levels were correlated with sex, clinical stage, body mass index, smoking status, and EBV DNA level. Multivariate analysis showed that hs-CRP had significant association with OS (HR:1.723; 95%CI:1.238-2.398; p = 0.001), PFS (HR:1.621; 95%CI:1.273-2.064; p<0.001) and DMFS (HR:1.879; 95%CI:1.394-2.531; p<0.001). In subgroups such as advanced-stage group, low EBV DNA group and high EBV DNA group, elevated hs-CRP levels still predicted poor clinical outcomes. Furthermore, in patients with chronic HBV infection, decreased 4-year survival was observed in the cohort of high hs-CRP levels, with 87.4% vs. 94.9% (p = 0.023) for OS, 65.2% vs. 90.8% (p<0.001) for PFS, and 67.6% vs. 95.0% (p<0.001) for DMFS. A similar finding was observed for patients with cardiovascular disease, with 79.1% vs. 90.2% (p = 0.020) for PFS, and 71.4% vs. 97.6% (p = 0.002) for DMFS. CONCLUSION: Elevated serum hs-CRP levels were correlated with poor survival for NPC patients in the IMRT era, playing a complementary role to TNM stage and EBV DNA. In addition, elevated hs-CRP level was still an effective indicator for patients with chronic HBV infection and cardiovascular disease.

High-sensitivity C-reactive protein complements plasma Epstein-Barr virus deoxyribonucleic acid prognostication in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a large-scale retrospective and prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of combining the assessment of circulating high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) with that of Epstein-Barr virus DNA (EBV DNA) in the pretherapy prognostication of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three independent cohorts of NPC patients (training set of n=3113, internal validation set of n=1556, and prospective validation set of n=1668) were studied. Determinants of disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival were assessed by multivariate analysis. Hazard ratios and survival probabilities of the patient groups, segregated by clinical stage (T1-2N0-1M0, T3-4N0-1M0, T1-2N2-3M0, and T3-4N2-3M0) and EBV DNA load (low or high) alone, and also according to hs-CRP level (low or high), were compared. RESULTS: Elevated hs-CRP and EBV DNA levels were significantly correlated with poor disease-free survival, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival in both the training and validation sets. Associations were similar and remained significant after excluding patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic hepatitis B. Patients with advanced-stage disease were segregated by high EBV DNA levels and high hs-CRP level into a poorest-risk group, and participants with either high EBV DNA but low hs-CRP level or high hs-CRP but low EBV DNA values had poorer survival compared with the bottom values for both biomarkers. These findings demonstrate a significant improvement in the prognostic ability of conventional advanced NPC staging. CONCLUSION: Baseline plasma EBV DNA and serum hs-CRP levels were significantly correlated with survival in NPC patients. The combined interpretation of EBV DNA with hs-CRP levels led to refinement of the risks for the patient subsets, with improved risk discrimination in patients with advanced-stage disease.

Two approaches to incorporate clinical data uncertainty into multiple criteria decision analysis for benefit-risk assessment of medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: The Problem formulation, Objectives, Alternatives, Consequences, Trade-offs, Uncertainties, Risk attitude, and Linked decisions (PrOACT-URL) framework and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been recommended by the European Medicines Agency for structured benefit-risk assessment of medicinal products undergoing regulatory review. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to provide solutions to incorporate the uncertainty from clinical data into the MCDA model when evaluating the overall benefit-risk profiles among different treatment options. METHODS: Two statistical approaches, the δ-method approach and the Monte-Carlo approach, were proposed to construct the confidence interval of the overall benefit-risk score from the MCDA model as well as other probabilistic measures for comparing the benefit-risk profiles between treatment options. Both approaches can incorporate the correlation structure between clinical parameters (criteria) in the MCDA model and are straightforward to implement. RESULTS: The two proposed approaches were applied to a case study to evaluate the benefit-risk profile of an add-on therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (drug X) relative to placebo. It demonstrated a straightforward way to quantify the impact of the uncertainty from clinical data to the benefit-risk assessment and enabled statistical inference on evaluating the overall benefit-risk profiles among different treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: The δ-method approach provides a closed form to quantify the variability of the overall benefit-risk score in the MCDA model, whereas the Monte-Carlo approach is more computationally intensive but can yield its true sampling distribution for statistical inference. The obtained confidence intervals and other probabilistic measures from the two approaches enhance the benefit-risk decision making of medicinal products.