MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901057459 · doi:10.1111/head.13446

The Effect of Beginning Treatment With Fremanezumab on Headache and Associated Symptoms in the Randomized Phase 2 Study of High Frequency Episodic Migraine: Post‐Hoc Analyses on the First 3 Weeks of Treatment

2018· article· en· W2901057459 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen D. Silberstein, Alan M. Rapoport, Pippa S. Loupe, Ernesto Aycardi, Mirna McDonald, Ronghua Yang, Marcelo E. Bigal

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMigraine and Headache Studies
Canadian institutionsXenon Pharmaceuticals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPost-hoc analysisMigraineMedicinePost hocRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Migraine has a substantial impact on daily living, affecting productivity and quality of life for patients and their families. Patients frequently discontinue preventive medications in part because of a delay in headache and symptom relief due to the long dose titration procedures necessary for some migraine preventives. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of fremanezumab, a selective monoclonal CGRP ligand antibody, during the first 3 weeks of therapy in patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) to relieve migraine headaches and associated symptoms and to reduce use of acute migraine medications. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study, patients with HFEM who met inclusion criteria and were 80% compliant with daily headache diary entry were randomized and treated once every 28 days for 3 months with either placebo or fremanezumab 225 or 675 mg. Compared to placebo, both doses of fremanezumab significantly reduced the primary endpoint of the HFEM study, change in the number of migraine days in month 3 relative to baseline. Herein, we performed post-hoc analyses to assess the efficacy of each dose during the first 3 weeks of treatment to reduce migraine headache parameters, associated migraine symptoms, and the consumption of acute migraine medications. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 297 study participants. Compared to placebo, decreases in migraine days were seen during the first week of therapy for both fremanezumab doses with least square mean (LSM) differences between fremanezumab 225 mg and placebo of -0.93 (95% CI: -1.36, -0.49) and between 675 mg dose and placebo of -1.02 (95% CI: -1.46, -0.58), both P < .0001. This benefit was maintained through the second week of therapy for the 225 and 675 mg doses, respectively, (-0.76 (95% CI: -1.11, -0.40) P < .0001, -.79 (95% CI: -1.15, -0.44) P < .0001) and the third week of therapy (-0.64 (95% CI: -0.97, -0.30) P = .0003 and -0.64 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.30) P = .0003). Likewise in the first week, patients recorded reductions in associated migraine symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia, which continued through weeks 2 and 3. There were also reductions in days with acute medication use to treat migraine for the 225 and 675 mg fremanezumab doses compared to placebo. In the first week, LSM differences between 225 mg and placebo were -1.02 (95% CI: -1.39, -0.64) and between 675 mg and placebo were -1.06 (95% CI: -1.39, -0.64) P < .0001); for the second and third weeks (-1.01 (95% CI: -1.14, -0.55) P < .0001; -.90 (95% CI: -1.04, -0.44) P < .0001; -.91 (95% CI: -0.92, -0.34) P < .0001; and -.83 (95% CI: -0.84, -0.26) P = .0002), respectively. CONCLUSION: Fremanezumab treatment resulted in a rapid preventive response in patients with HFEM, with reductions seen in several headache parameters and migraine symptoms within the first week after therapy initiation and continuing during the second and third weeks. Patients also were able to rapidly reduce their use of acute medications to treat migraine attacks. The trial is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02025556.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicMigraine and Headache StudiesFrench-language works237,207