Nirmatrelvir for Vaccinated or Unvaccinated Adult Outpatients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Nirmatrelvir in combination with ritonavir is an antiviral treatment for mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this treatment in patients who are at standard risk for severe Covid-19 or who are fully vaccinated and have at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 has not been established. METHODS: In this phase 2-3 trial, we randomly assigned adults who had confirmed Covid-19 with symptom onset within the past 5 days in a 1:1 ratio to receive nirmatrelvir-ritonavir or placebo every 12 hours for 5 days. Patients who were fully vaccinated against Covid-19 and who had at least one risk factor for severe disease, as well as patients without such risk factors who had never been vaccinated against Covid-19 or had not been vaccinated within the previous year, were eligible for participation. Participants logged the presence and severity of prespecified Covid-19 signs and symptoms daily from day 1 through day 28. The primary end point was the time to sustained alleviation of all targeted Covid-19 signs and symptoms. Covid-19-related hospitalization and death from any cause were also assessed through day 28. RESULTS: Among the 1296 participants who underwent randomization and were included in the full analysis population, 1288 received at least one dose of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (654 participants) or placebo (634 participants) and had at least one postbaseline visit. The median time to sustained alleviation of all targeted signs and symptoms of Covid-19 was 12 days in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 13 days in the placebo group (P = 0.60). Five participants (0.8%) in the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group and 10 (1.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for Covid-19 or died from any cause (difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 0.4). The percentages of participants with adverse events were similar in the two groups (25.8% with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and 24.1% with placebo). In the nirmatrelvir-ritonavir group, the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were dysgeusia (in 5.8% of the participants) and diarrhea (in 2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and those who received placebo. (Supported by Pfizer; EPIC-SR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05011513.).

Pregabalin as adjunctive therapy in adult and pediatric patients with generalized tonic-clonic seizures: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Generalized tonic-clonic (GTC) seizures are the most common type of generalized seizure and more common in children than adults. This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for GTC seizures in adults and children with epilepsy. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated pregabalin (5 mg/kg/day or 10 mg/kg/day) vs placebo as adjunctive therapy for 10 weeks (following a 2-week dose escalation), in pediatric and adult patients (aged 5-65 years) with GTC seizures. Primary endpoint was change in log-transformed 28-day seizure rate during active treatment. Secondary endpoints included responder rates, defined as proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in 28-day GTC seizure rate from baseline. Safety was monitored throughout. RESULTS: Of 219 patients, 75, 72, and 72 were randomized to adjunctive pregabalin 5 mg/kg/day, 10 mg/kg/day, and placebo, respectively. Fifteen, 11, and 6 patients discontinued from the 5 mg/kg/day, 10 mg/kg/day, and placebo arms, respectively, most commonly due to adverse events (AEs; 10.7%, 6.9%, and 5.6%, respectively). A nonsignificant change in log-transformed mean 28-day seizure rate was seen with pregabalin 10 mg/kg/day vs placebo (least-squares [LS] mean difference -0.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.19 to 0.16]; P = .8889) and with pregabalin 5 mg/kg/day vs placebo (LS mean difference 0.02 [CI -0.15 to 0.19]; P = .8121). Similar observations were noted for adults and children. No significant differences were seen for secondary endpoints with pregabalin vs placebo, including responder rate. The most common AEs (≥10%) were dizziness, headache, and somnolence. Most were of mild/moderate intensity. Seven patients had serious AEs, with one death in the placebo arm (sudden unexpected death in epilepsy). SIGNIFICANCE: Adjunctive pregabalin treatment did not change GTC seizure rate in adults or children. The safety profile of pregabalin was similar to that known; treatment was well tolerated with few discontinuations due to AEs.

Pregabalin adjunctive therapy for focal onset seizures in children 1 month to <4 years of age: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, video-electroencephalographic trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive treatment for children (aged 1 month-<4 years) with focal onset seizures (FOS) using video-electroencephalography (V-EEG). METHODS: This randomized, placebo-controlled, international study included V-EEG seizure monitoring (48-72 hours) at baseline and over the last 3 days of 14-day (5-day dose escalation; 9-day fixed dose) double-blind pregabalin treatment (7 or 14 mg/kg/d in three divided doses). This was followed by a double-blind 1-week taper. The primary efficacy endpoint was log-transformed seizure rate (loge [24-hour seizure rate + 1]) for all FOS recorded during the double-blind V-EEG monitoring, evaluated in subjects who took ≥1 dose of study medication, experienced ≥1 baseline seizure(s), and had a treatment phase V-EEG. Safety and tolerability were assessed by adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, physical/neurological examinations, vital signs, and electrocardiograms. RESULTS: Overall, 175 patients were randomized (mean age = 28.2 months; 59% male, 69% white, 30% Asian) in a 2:1:2 ratio to pregabalin 7 or 14 mg/kg/d (n = 71 or n = 34, respectively), or placebo (n = 70). Pregabalin 14 mg/kg/d (n = 28) resulted in a statistically significant 35% reduction of loge (24-hour seizure rate + 1) versus placebo (n = 53; P = .022), an effect that was not observed with pregabalin 7 mg/kg/d (n = 59; P = .461). The most frequently reported treatment-emergent AEs for pregabalin 7 mg/kg/d, 14 mg/kg/d, and placebo, respectively, were somnolence (11.3%, 17.6%, and 5.7%) and upper respiratory tract infection (7.0%, 11.8%, and 11.4%). All AEs were mild to moderate in severity. SIGNIFICANCE: Pregabalin 14 mg/kg/d (but not 7 mg/kg/d) significantly reduced seizure rate in children with FOS, when assessed using V-EEG, compared with placebo. Both pregabalin dosages were generally safe and well tolerated in children 1 month to <4 years of age with FOS. Safety and tolerability were consistent with the known profile of pregabalin in older children with epilepsy.

Pregabalin as Adjunctive Treatment for Focal Onset Seizures in Pediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin as adjunctive treatment for children (aged 4-16 years) with partial-onset seizures, hereafter termed focal onset seizures for this study, was evaluated. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international study had 3 phases: 8-week baseline, 12-week double-blind treatment (2-week dose escalation; 10-week fixed dose), and 1-week taper. Selection criteria included experiencing focal onset seizures and receiving a stable regimen of 1 to 3 antiepileptic drugs. Study treatments were pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d, 10 mg/kg/d, or placebo; doses were increased to 3.5 or 14 mg/kg/d for subjects weighing <30 kg. The key endpoints were change in loge(28-day seizure rate), achieving a ≥50% seizure responder rate, safety, and tolerability during double-blind treatment. Subjects (n = 295; mean age 10.2 years, 55% male, 69% white) were randomized to pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d (n = 104), 10 mg/kg/d (n = 97), or placebo (n = 94). A statistically significant reduction in loge(28-day seizure rate) was demonstrated with pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d (a 19.9% improvement over placebo; P = .0185). Seizure frequency was numerically improved (statistically nonsignificant) with pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d ( P = .2577). Responder rate significantly favored pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d (40.6%, P = .0068) compared with placebo (22.6%) and was numerically improved with pregabalin 2.5 mg/kg/d (29.1%, P = .2600). Common adverse events (≥10% of any group) in 10 mg/kg/d, 2.5 mg/kg/d, and placebo groups, respectively, included somnolence (25.8%, 17.3%, 13.8%), increased weight (13.4%, 3.8%, 4.3%), and increased appetite (10.3%, 6.7%, 4.3%). Pregabalin 10 mg/kg/d demonstrated efficacy in seizure frequency reduction in children with focal onset seizures compared with placebo, and both pregabalin doses were generally safe and well tolerated. www.clinicialtrials.gov identifier NCT01389596; EudraCT #2010-020852-79.

Prediction of therapeutic response to pregabalin in subjects with neuropathic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate four models based on potential predictors for achieving a response to pregabalin treatment for neuropathic pain (NeP). METHODS: In total, 46 pain studies were screened, of which 27 NeP studies met the criteria for inclusion in this analysis. Data were pooled from these 27 placebo-controlled randomized trials to assess if baseline characteristics (including mean pain and pain-related sleep interference [PRSI] scores), early clinical response during weeks 1-3 of treatment (change from baseline in pain and PRSI scores), and presence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were predictive of therapeutic response. Therapeutic response was defined as a ≥30% reduction from baseline in either pain and/or PRSI scores at week 5 with supplemental analyses to predict pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12. Predictors of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) were also evaluated. Four models were assessed: Random Forest, Logistic Regression, Naïve Bayes, and Partial Least Squares. RESULTS: The number of pregabalin-treated subjects in the training/test datasets, respectively, were 2818/1407 (30% pain analysis), 2812/1405 (30% sleep analysis), and 2693/1345 (PGIC analysis). All four models demonstrated consistent results, and the most important predictors of treatment outcomes at week 5 and pain outcomes at weeks 8 and 12 were the reduction in pain score and sleep score in the first 1-3 weeks. The presence or absence of the most common AEs in the first 1-3 weeks was not correlated with any treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with an early response to pregabalin are more likely to experience an end-of-treatment response.

Neuropathic pain responds better to increased doses of pregabalin: an in-depth analysis of flexible-dose clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin is an effective treatment option for many patients with neuropathic pain. Higher doses of pregabalin have been shown to be more effective in improving pain outcomes but, in practice, failing to appropriately increase the dose can leave patients under-treated. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of 6 flexible-dose clinical trials of pregabalin in patients with neuropathic pain (diabetic peripheral neuropathy, peripheral herpetic neuralgia, posttraumatic pain, or postsurgical pain). Patients were divided into "dose pathway" groups based on their weekly pregabalin dose from the start of their trial to the first week of their maintenance phase. These were: 150 mg/day only; 150 to 300 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 450 to 600 mg/day; 150 to 300 to 600 mg/day; 300 to 600 mg/day. Pain outcomes assessed for each group at each new dose were proportion of 30% and 50% responders (≥30% or ≥50% reduction in mean pain score from baseline) and mean change in pain score. Percent change in mean pain score from baseline was assessed using a marginal structural model. RESULTS: Seven hundred and sixty-one patients treated with flexible-dose pregabalin were included in the analysis. For each dose pathway group, there was a notably greater proportion of 30% and 50% responders and change in pain score, at each escalating dose. As assessed by the marginal structural model, higher doses of pregabalin were estimated to result in a significantly greater change in mean pain score at each week. This dose response with flexible-dose pregabalin was consistent with that previously observed with fixed-dose pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Many patients who do not respond to lower doses of pregabalin will respond with notable improvements in pain outcomes when the dose is escalated. These data should encourage physicians treating patients with neuropathic pain to escalate pregabalin to the dose that delivers optimal analgesia and tolerable side effects.

Effect of Concomitant Pain Medications on Response to Pregabalin in Patients with Postherpetic Neuralgia or Spinal Cord Injury-Related Neuropathic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients with neuropathic pain (NeP) often receive combination therapy with multiple agents in the hopes of improving both pain and any comorbidities that may be present. While pregabalin is often recommended as a first-line treatment of NeP, few studies have examined the effects of concomitant medications on the efficacy of pregabalin. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of concomitant medications on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for the treatment of NeP. STUDY DESIGN: Data were derived from 7 randomized placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin (150, 300, 600, and flexible 150 - 600 mg/d) for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and 2 randomized placebo-controlled trials for the treatment of NeP due to spinal cord injury (SCI-NeP). On each day, patients rated the severity of their pain and pain-related sleep interference (PRSI) over the previous 24 hours on a scale from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater severity. Patients were also continually monitored for the occurrence of adverse events. SETTING: A pooled retrospective analyses of data from randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Changes from baseline in mean weekly pain and PRSI scores were compared between patients who received concomitant NeP medications and patients who did not receive concomitant NeP medications. Results of these comparisons are presented separately for the PHN (through 4, 8, and 12 weeks) and SCI-NeP (through 12 weeks) cohorts. Common adverse events are also presented for each treatment group. RESULTS: Pregabalin significantly improved both pain and PRSI scores relative to placebo at most dose levels and time points examined. Notably, little difference was observed in the extent of therapeutic response to pregabalin between patients who received concomitant NeP medications and patients who did not receive concomitant NeP medications. Additionally, the profile of treatment-emergent adverse events appeared to be largely unaffected by the use of concomitant NeP medications in the pooled patient population. LIMITATIONS: Our analysis is limited in that the original trials of pregabalin were not powered to examine the effects of concomitant NeP medications. CONCLUSIONS: The data presented here demonstrate that therapeutic response to pregabalin and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with NeP are generally unaffected by the concurrent use of other NeP medications.Trial Registration numbers: NCT00159666; NCT00301223; NCT00407745Key words: Pregabalin, neuropathic pain, pain-related sleep interference, concomitant medications, postherpetic neuralgia, spinal cord injury, efficacy, safety.

Does Duration of Neuropathic Pain Impact the Effectiveness of Pregabalin?

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic pain conditions such as neuropathic pain frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. Ideally, all patients should be treated in a timely manner, but in those patients with more established disease it is important to know that approved treatments remain effective. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of 19 randomized placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for peripheral neuropathic pain conditions, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and post-traumatic/postsurgical pain. Patients were divided into 5 pain duration categories based on time since onset of pain (< 6 months, 6 months to < 1 year, 1 year to < 2 years, 2 years to < 5 years, and ≥ 5 years). Mean change in pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, was assessed for each category, together with changes in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responders ("very much" or "much" improved at endpoint). RESULTS: The analysis included 5,783 patients (n = 3,619 pregabalin; n = 2,164 placebo). Mean baseline pain scores were similar across the pain duration categories (range 6.3 to 6.5). Pregabalin significantly improved pain score at endpoint, vs. placebo, in all patients together (treatment difference [95% confidence interval], -0.59 [-0.67, -0.52], P < 0.0001) and similarly in each pain duration category (P < 0.0001 for each). There were significantly more PGIC responders with pregabalin, vs. placebo, for all patients (45.0% vs. 30.9%, P < 0.0001) and each category separately (P < 0.001 for each). There were no consistent, significant differences in treatment response between the different pain duration categories. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin significantly improves pain irrespective of the length of time since onset of neuropathic pain.

Early improvement with pregabalin predicts endpoint response in patients with generalized anxiety disorder: an integrated and predictive data analysis.

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), a common mental disorder, has several treatment options including pregabalin. Not all patients respond to treatment; quickly determining which patients will respond is an important treatment goal. Patient-level data were pooled from nine phase II and III randomized, double-blind, short-term, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin for the treatment of GAD. Efficacy outcomes included the change from baseline in the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) total score and psychic and somatic subscales. Predictive modelling assessed baseline characteristics and early clinical responses to determine those predictive of clinical improvement at endpoint. A total of 2155 patients were included in the analysis (1447 pregabalin, 708 placebo). Pregabalin significantly improved the HAM-A total score compared with the placebo at endpoint, treatment difference (95% confidence interval), -2.61 (-3.21 to -2.01), P<0.0001. Pregabalin significantly improved HAM-A psychic and somatic scores compared with placebo, -1.52 (-1.85 to -1.18), P<0.0001, and -1.10 (-1.41 to -0.80), P<0.0001, respectively. Response to pregabalin in the first 1-2 weeks (≥20 or ≥30% improvement in HAM-A total, psychic or somatic score) was predictive of an endpoint greater than or equal to 50% improvement in the HAM-A total score. Pregabalin is an effective treatment option for patients with GAD. Patients with early response to pregabalin are more likely to respond significantly at endpoint.

Adjunctive pregabalin vs gabapentin for focal seizures: Interpretation of comparative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative safety and adjunctive efficacy of pregabalin and gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial-onset seizures based on prestudy modeling showing superior efficacy for pregabalin. METHODS: The design of this comparative efficacy and safety study of pregabalin and gabapentin as adjunctive treatment in adults with refractory partial-onset seizures was randomized, flexible dose, double blind, and parallel group. The study included a 6-week baseline and a 21-week treatment phase. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate to the treatment phase. RESULTS: A total of 484 patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 242) or gabapentin (n = 242). Of these, 359 patients (187 pregabalin, 172 gabapentin) completed the treatment phase. The observed median and mean in percentage change from baseline was -58.65 and -47.7 (SD 48.3) for pregabalin and -57.43 and -45.28 (SD 60.6) for gabapentin. For the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between treatments. The Hodges-Lehman estimated median difference was 0.0 (95% confidence interval -6.0 to 7.0). Safety profiles were comparable and consistent with prior trials. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of the anticipated efficacy difference based on modeling of prior, nearly identical trials and the larger-than-expected response rates of the 2 antiepileptic drugs were unexpected. These findings raise questions that are potentially important to consider in future comparative efficacy trials. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00537940. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with partial seizures enrolled in this study, pregabalin is not superior to gabapentin in reducing seizure frequency. Because of the atypical response rates, the results of this study are poorly generalizable to other epilepsy populations.

Pregabalin does not affect sperm production in healthy volunteers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, noninferiority study.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of pregabalin and placebo on sperm concentration in healthy male subjects. Changes in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), testosterone, sperm motility, semen volume, and sperm morphology were also examined. METHODS: This was a phase 4, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, noninferiority study. A 12-week treatment period (placebo or 600 mg/day of pregabalin) was followed by a 1-week taper period and a 13-week washout period. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of subjects with a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in sperm concentration at End of Study. RESULTS: One hundred and nine subjects received placebo and 111 subjects received pregabalin. The difference between placebo and pregabalin with respect to the percentage of subjects with a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in sperm concentration at End of Study was 6% (95% CI: -2.29 to 14.3%). Noninferiority of pregabalin compared to placebo was declared as the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 20%. There were no significant differences between placebo and pregabalin groups with respect to their effects on FSH, testosterone, or sperm motility. Changes in semen volume and sperm morphology were numerically similar in both treatment groups. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of pregabalin. Treatment with 600 mg/day pregabalin for 12 weeks does not adversely affect spermatogenesis or serum levels of FSH and testosterone in healthy males.

Efficacy and safety of pregabalin versus levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy in patients with partial seizures: a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative efficacy and safety of pregabalin and levetiracetam for the reduction of seizure frequency in patients with partial seizures. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, parallel-group noninferiority study of pregabalin and levetiracetam (randomized 1:1) as adjunctive treatment in adult patients with refractory partial seizures. The study included a 6-week baseline phase, 4-week dose-escalation phase, and 12-week maintenance phase. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a ≥ 50% reduction in 28-day seizure rate during the 12-week maintenance phase, as compared with baseline. Noninferiority of pregabalin was declared if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in responder rates was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12%. A key secondary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in 28-day seizure rate during the dose-escalation and maintenance phases. RESULTS: Five hundred nine patients were randomized to pregabalin (n = 254) or levetiracetam (n = 255) and 418 (208 pregabalin, 210 levetiracetam) completed the maintenance phase. With both pregabalin and levetiracetam, the proportion of patients with a ≥ 50% reduction in 28-day seizure rate was 0.59 (difference between groups [95% CI], 0.00 [-0.08 to 0.09]). Because the lower bound of the 95% CI was greater than the prespecified noninferiority margin of -12%, pregabalin was not inferior to levetiracetam. There was no significant difference between pregabalin and levetiracetam in the percent change in 28-day seizure rate (median difference [95% CI], 4.1 [-2.6 to 10.9], p = 0.3571). In a post hoc analysis, the proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the maintenance phase was lower with pregabalin (8.4%) than with levetiracetam (16.2%), p = 0.0155. Safety profiles were similar and consistent with prior trials. SIGNIFICANCE: These results indicate that pregabalin is noninferior, and has a similar tolerability, to levetiracetam as adjunctive therapy in reducing seizure frequency in patients with partial seizures.

Outcome for headache and pain-free nonresponders to treatment of the first attack: a pooled post-hoc analysis of four randomized trials of eletriptan 40 mg.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate, in first attack eletriptan headache and pain-free nonresponders, the efficacy of treating a second and third attack with the same dose of eletriptan 40 mg (ELE-40). METHODS: Data were pooled from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple attack studies of eletriptan in the treatment of migraine. The first-attack eletriptan headache (HNR) and pain-free (PFNR) nonresponder samples consisted of patients who did not achieve headache or pain-free responses at two hours, or sustained headache or pain-free responses at 24 hours. The efficacy of the same dose of eletriptan (vs placebo; PBO) in treating the second and third attacks was evaluated using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Among Attack 1 eletriptan HNRs, treatment with ELE-40 (vs PBO) was associated with significantly higher two-hour headache response and pain-free rates, respectively, on both Attack 2 (48.8% vs 20.2%; 17.0% vs 3.9%; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons) and Attack 3 (37.4% vs 15.5%; 18.8% vs 3.2%; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Significantly higher sustained headache response and pain-free rates at 24 hours were also observed on both Attack 2 and Attack 3. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis suggest that patients who have HNR or PFNR to an initial dose of eletriptan may respond when a second and third attack is treated with the same dose.

Comparing the efficacy of eletriptan for migraine in women during menstrual and non-menstrual time periods: a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan in treating migraine attacks occurring within the defined menstrual time period of 1 day before and 4 days after onset of menstruation (menses days -1 to +4) compared with attacks occurring during non-menstrual time periods (occurring outside of menses days -1 to +4). BACKGROUND: Migraine attacks during menses have been associated with longer duration, higher recurrence rates, greater treatment resistance, and greater functional disability than those not associated with menses. The efficacy of eletriptan in treating migraine attacks associated with menstruation vs those outside a defined menstrual period has not been evaluated. METHODS: Data were pooled from 5 similarly designed, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of eletriptan 20 mg/40 mg/80 mg. Two groups were defined for this analysis: women with a single index migraine beginning during the menstrual (group 1) and non-menstrual (group 2) time periods. End points of interest were headache response at 2 hours, migraine recurrence and sustained responses for nausea, photo/phonophobia, and function. Logistic regression was used to compare group 1 vs group 2 and each eletriptan dose (20, 40, or 80 mg) vs. placebo. Adverse events were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 3217 subjects pooled from 5 studies, 2216 women were either in group 1 (n = 630) or group 2 (n = 1586). Rates of headache response at 2 hours were similar in group 1 vs. group 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91, 1.36]; P = .2944). The rate of headache recurrence was significantly higher in group 1 vs group 2 (26.8% vs. 18.6%; OR = 1.67 [95% CI 1.23, 2.26]; P < .001). The odds of achieving sustained nausea responses were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2 (OR = 0.70 [95% CI 0.54, 0.92]; P = .0097). There was no significant difference between group 1 and group 2 in the odds of achieving a sustained photo/phonophobia and functional response (OR = 0.96 [95% CI 0.77, 1.20]; P = .7269 and OR = 1.14 [95% CI 0.87, 1.50]; P = .3425, respectively). Adverse events were comparable between group 1 and group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Two-hour headache outcome measures were similar in women treated with eletriptan both within and outside of the defined menstrual time period (menses days -1 to +4). The main treatment differences between the 2 groups occurred 2-24 hours post-treatment, with higher recurrence rates and lower sustained response rates for nausea in the group treated during the menstrual time period.

Consistency of eletriptan in treating migraine: Results of a randomized, within-patient multiple-dose study.

OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated the consistency of eletriptan response. METHODS: Using a within-patient crossover design, patients with migraine completed a three-attack, open-label, lead-in period, before being treated, double-blind for four attacks, with either eletriptan 40 mg (ELE-40; N = 539) or eletriptan 80 mg (ELE-80; N = 432); placebo was randomly substituted for the treatment of one attack. RESULTS: On an A PRIORI analysis of within-patient consistency, double-blind treatment was associated with similar 2 hour headache response rates using a ≥2/3 response criterion for ELE-40 (77%) and ELE-80 (73%), and using a 3/3 response criterion for ELE-40 (46%) and ELE-80 (47%). Within-patient consistency in achieving pain-free status at 2 hours using a ≥2/3 criterion was slightly higher on ELE-40 (42%) compared with ELE-80 (38%), and was similar using the 3/3 criterion (18% on ELE-40, 17% on ELE-80). On a repeated measures logistic regression analysis across all treated attacks, the probability of achieving a headache response at 2 hours ranged from 71% to 74% on ELE-40 vs. 17% to 28% on placebo ( P < 0.0001), and from 66% to 74% on ELE-80 vs. 21% to 27% on placebo ( P < 0.0001). The incidence, per attack, of adverse events was low for both ELE-40 and ELE-80. Few adverse events occurred with incidence ≥10% on ELE-40 (asthenia, 5.0%) or ELE-80 (asthenia, 10%; nausea, 5.8%). Discontinuations because of adverse events were 0.2% on ELE-40, and 1.6% on ELE-80 CONCLUSION: In this multiple attack study, eletriptan was well-tolerated and demonstrated consistent and significant efficacy in the treatment of migraine.

The impact of background antiepileptic drugs on the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in treating partial-onset seizures: a post hoc analysis of combined clinical trials.

Pregabalin is used as adjunctive treatment for partial-onset seizures and is often combined with multiple antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) from different classes. The objectives of this post hoc analysis were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin when added to different AED regimens and to identify specific AED combinations that in conjunction with pregabalin yield high responder rates. Data from six double-blind, randomized studies of pregabalin in patients with partial-onset seizures were pooled for analysis (N=1775). When the treatment groups (placebo, 150mg, 300mg, 600mg, and flexible dose) were stratified by the number of concomitant AEDs (one, two or three or more), modeling results suggested that the magnitude of improvement on either ≥50% responder rate or mean response ratio remained consistent regardless of the number of concomitant AEDs. Adverse events were typical of pregabalin and, in general, did not vary as the number of concomitant AEDs increased. A cluster analysis was performed to identify possible combinations of AEDs that yielded high ≥50% responder rates. The majority of patients (>90%) fell within two clusters that yielded high responder rates, while <10% of the patients fell within two clusters that yielded low responder rates. Numerous AED combinations, ranging from 6 to 11, occurred within each cluster. In summary, pregabalin provided a consistent improvement in seizure reduction and comparable tolerability in patients with partial-onset epilepsy regardless of the number of concomitant AEDs.

Pregabalin or placebo used adjunctively with levetiracetam in refractory partial-onset epilepsy: a post hoc efficacy and safety analysis in combined clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with epilepsy require treatment with >1 adjunctive antiepileptic drug (AED) to achieve adequate seizure remission. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding adjunctive pregabalin to an AED regimen that included levetiracetam in patients with refractory partial-onset epilepsy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the pregabalin and placebo arms of two placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized studies of pregabalin in patients who received adjunctive treatment with levetiracetam in addition to ≥1 other AEDs were pooled for this post hoc analysis. Patients (aged ≥18 years) had ≥4 partial-onset seizures and no 28-day period free of seizures during baseline. Efficacy outcomes included Response Ratio (RRatio), change from baseline in seizure frequency, proportion of patients with ≥50% reduction in seizure frequency, and 28-day seizure-freedom rate. Safety was evaluated using adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: In total, 138 patients were included in the analysis (placebo, n = 47; pregabalin, n = 91). Pregabalin was significantly better than placebo for difference in least squares mean of the RRatio (-16.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -28.5, -4.5; p = 0.0085), median of the difference in percentage change from baseline in seizure frequency (-22.3; 95% CI: -40.1, -7.2; p = 0.0095), and proportion of 50% responders (36.3 vs. 17.0; odds ratio, 3.2; 95% CI: 1.3, 8.3; p = 0.018), but not 28-day seizure-freedom rate (7 [7.7%] vs. 2 [4.3%]; p = 0.353). The most common AEs when adding pregabalin were dizziness/vertigo, fatigue, somnolence, blurred vision, and increased weight that were not proportional to the number of concomitant AEDs. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with refractory partial-onset seizures, adding pregabalin to an AED regimen with levetiracetam produced further seizure reductions. The safety profile of pregabalin in patients receiving levetiracetam and ≥1 other AEDs did not appear to be compromised by the number of concomitant AEDs.

Quantifying the return of headache in triptan-treated migraineurs: an observational study.

To improve understanding of secondary treatment failure in migraine patients, we evaluated 'headache return' as a novel endpoint to assess returning headaches according to their severity, expanding on current standard assessments of overall recurrence or relapse rates, in a six-month observational study of triptan-treated migraineurs. A total of 359 patients (91% female; mean age, 42.5 years) recorded data for 2168 headaches in electronic diaries. Two-thirds of headaches responded to triptan treatment (improved-to-mild or no pain two hours post-dose); 34% of headaches had a pain-free response. By 48 hours post-dose, 19% of all responding headaches returned; 24% of headaches achieving a pain-free response returned, predominantly to mild pain. More severe baseline headache, short duration since diagnosis of migraine, and female gender were associated with increased likelihood of headache return. Treatment satisfaction declined with increasing severity of headache return, demonstrating the value of assessing headache return by severity to fully evaluate its impact.

Predictors of migraine headache recurrence: a pooled analysis from the eletriptan database.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical variables associated with risk of headache recurrence within 22 hours of initial successful treatment of a migraine attack (2-hour headache response), and to analyze the effect of eletriptan in reducing the incidence of recurrence. METHODS: Data were pooled from 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating eletriptan 40 mg (E40), eletriptan 80 mg (E80), and sumatriptan 100 mg (S100) for acute migraine treatment. Patients who achieved a headache response (improvement from moderate/severe pain at baseline to mild/no pain at 2 hours postdose) were evaluable. A multivariable logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors of headache recurrence (return to moderate/severe pain intensity within 22 hours of initial headache response). Treatment response was assessed in two high-risk subgroups, defined by the presence of significant recurrence predictors. RESULTS: Of 4312 patients responding to acute treatment within 2 hours postdose, 1232 (29%) experienced recurrence. Initial headache response within 2 hours was significantly higher for E40 (62.0%), E80 (67.4%), and S100 (57.9%) compared to placebo (25.1%; all P < .0001). Three clinical variables were significant predictors of recurrence: female gender, age > or = 35 years, and severe baseline headache pain. Among patients with all 3 risk factors (n = 742; 17% of total population), recurrence rates were lower with E40 (35.6%) and E80 (32.9%) than placebo (47.8% P < .01). The same result was observed in the subgroup of patients with 2 risk factors (female gender and age > or = 35 years; P < .0001 vs placebo). Sustained headache and pain-free response rates (a headache/pain-free response at 2 hours postdose with no headache recurrence and no rescue medication use in the subsequent 22 hours) were significantly higher with E40 and E80 than placebo in both high-risk subgroups (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Female gender, age > or = 35 years, and severe baseline headache pain are significant predictors of headache recurrence during a migraine attack. Eletriptan is effective at reducing the incidence of headache recurrence in high-risk subgroups.

Efficacy of eletriptan in migraine-related functional impairment: functional and work productivity outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a multidimensional assessment of the extent of functional impairment during an acute migraine attack, and of the improvement in functioning in response to treatment, using 4 concurrently administered scales: the 7-item work productivity questionnaire (PQ-7), the functional assessment in migraine (FAIM) activities and participation (FAIM-A&P) subscale, the FAIM-impact of migraine on mental functioning (FAIM-IMMF) subscale, and the traditional 4-point global functional impairment scale (FIS). METHODS: Outpatients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnosis of migraine were randomized to double-blind treatment of a single attack with either oral eletriptan 20 mg (n = 192) once-daily, eletriptan 40 mg (N = 213) once-daily, or placebo (n = 208). Patients were encouraged to take study medication as soon as they were sure they were experiencing a typical migraine headache, after the aura phase (if present) had ended. Patients with moderate-to-severe functional impairment were identified on each of the 4 disability scales, and 2-hour functional response was compared between treatments. RESULTS: At baseline, the PQ-7 and FAIM-IMMF items that assessed ability to perform tasks requiring concentration, sustained work or attention, and ability to think quickly or spontaneously, were especially sensitive to the effects of mild headache pain, with 27% to 48% of patients (n = 92-112) reporting moderate-to-severe impairment. Only 11.3% of patients (n = 112) reported this level of impairment due to mild pain on the FIS. Functional response at 2 hours was significantly higher on eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo on the FAIM-A&P (63% vs 36%; n = 218; P < .0001); on the PQ-7 (56% vs 34%; n = 116; P= .0052); and on the FAIM-IMMF (50% vs 34%; n = 215; P= .017). These rates were all lower than the functional response rates on the FIS for eletriptan 40 mg (75%) and eletriptan 20 mg (70%) versus placebo (45%; P < .001). Conclusions.-In this exploratory analysis, use of multidimensional scales was found to provide a sensitive measure of headache-related functional impairment, especially for detecting clinically meaningful cognitive effects, and for detecting drug versus placebo differences.