Browsing by Subject "smpc"

Erenumab (Aimovig®) is a first-in-class calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitor approved for the preventive treatment of migraine by the FDA in May 2018 and by European Commission (EC) in July 2018. It is a human monoclonal antibody (mAb) binding to the CGRP receptor, antagonizing the effect of CGRP. The marketing authorization of Aimovig® was based on two phase II and two phase III clinical trials. In all trials, erenumab with doses 70 mg/mL and 140 mg/mL was found to have a significantly superior effect compared to placebo, with a similar safety profile between all groups. These conclusions are mainly in line with studies conducted post marketing authorization. However, questions about the optimal dose, and the frequency and types of adverse events in larger patient populations remain to be studied. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) are required by the European Commission for each human medicine with a marketing authorization within the European Union. The SmPC is produced by the applicant and it should contain all relevant information of the medicinal product as distilled during the assessment process. The SmPC can thus be viewed as a kind of summarized version of the EPAR. The aim of this study was to investigate the post-marketing efficacy and safety information of erenumab from three perspectives: 1) the EPAR was compared with recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of erenumab, 2) all existing literature on the efficacy and safety of erenumab on different subgroups of migraine patients was assessed and summarized, and 3) the efficacy and safety information of the EPAR was compared to those of the SmPC, to resolve whether important information is missing. This review found several points regarding the efficacy and safety of erenumab. First, the status of erenumab was further established as a safe and effective treatment for the prevention of migraine. Second, meta-analyses (n=3) with more extensive cohorts compared to those of the EPAR and SmPC, present a further case for the superiority of the 140 mg dose compared to the 70 mg dose. The difference in dose effect is addressed in the EPAR but its assessment may be based on limited information. Third, different subgroups seem to respond differently to erenumab treatment. This aspect should be further investigated by head-to-head studies. Lastly, the safety information of the SmPC seems insufficient due to lack of mention of upper respiratory infections. This adverse event was among the most common in all of the four clinical trials and has since been observed in a real-world study. Based on these findings, neither the EPAR nor the SmPC of erenumab seem to be fully up to date and information related to the dose and upper respiratory infections as a risk should be reconsidered.