Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

New Medical Device and Therapeutic Approvals in Otolaryngology: State of the Art Review 2020

Objectives

To evaluate new drugs and devices relevant to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020.

Data Sources

Publicly available device and therapeutic approvals from ENT (ear, nose, and throat), anesthesia, neurology (neurosurgery), and plastic and general surgery FDA committees.

Review Methods

Members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery’s Medical Devices and Drugs Committee reviewed new therapeutics and medical devices from a query of the FDA’s device and therapeutic approvals. Two independent reviewers assessed the drug’s or device’s relevance to otolaryngology, classified to subspecialty field, with a critical review of available scientific literature.

Conclusions

The Medical Devices and Drugs Committee reviewed 53 new therapeutics and 1094 devices (89 ENT, 140 anesthesia, 511 plastic and general surgery, and 354 neurology) approved in 2020. Ten drugs and 17 devices were considered relevant to the otolaryngology community. Rhinology saw significant improvements around image guidance systems; indications for cochlear implantation expanded; several new monoclonal therapeutics were added to head and neck oncology’s armamentarium; and several new approvals appeared for facial plastics surgery, pediatric otolaryngology, and comprehensive otolaryngology.

Implications for Practice

New technologies and pharmaceuticals offer the promise of improving how we care for otolaryngology patients. However, judicious introduction of innovations into practice requires a nuanced understanding of safety, advantages, and limitations. Working knowledge of new drugs and medical devices approved for the market helps clinicians tailor patient care accordingly.

Lasmiditan: Acute Migraine Treatment Without Vasoconstriction. A Review

Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of the newly Food and Drug Administration approved drug lasmiditan, and its place in therapy in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Data Sources: A literature search of Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar was preformed (September 1999 to May 2021) using the following search terms: acute migraine treatment, triptans, lasmiditan, Reyvow, Rimegepant, Nurtec, Ubrogepant, Ubrelvy, migraine, vasoconstriction, and cardiovascular risk. Product labeling, https://www.clinicaltriasl.gov, and product monographs were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English-language studies were considered. Data Synthesis: Lasmiditan is the first in its class approved for acute migraine treatment. Lasmiditan exerts its therapeutic effect through agonism at the 5-HT_1F receptor, which has been shown to produce no vasoconstriction in preclinical models. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: It is both scientifically and clinically relevant to review lasmiditan and determine the value of an acute migraine drug that does not induce vasoconstriction. Patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions for which current migraine therapy is contraindicated may benefit from therapeutic use of lasmiditan. However, the potential cardiovascular benefit needs to be weighed against the increased central nervous system risks observed with lasmiditan. Conclusions: Lasmiditan is an oral tablet drug that is used for acute migraine abortive treatment and data suggest that it does not induce vasoconstriction, a common side effect often observed with the current first-line abortive migraine treatment drug class, triptans. This is especially important in acute migraine patients with cardiovascular risk factors in which triptan use is contraindicated.

Safety and Risk of Medication Overuse Headache in Lasmiditan and Second-Generation Gepants: A Rapid Review

The treatment of migraine is often complicated by insufficient headache relief, a miscellany of side effects and the risk of developing Medication Overuse Headache (MOH). Novel acute therapies have been recently developed and are now in the early post-marketing phase. Lasmiditan is a highly selective serotonin receptor agonist that binds to the 5-HT_1F receptor, while ubrogepant and rimegepant antagonize the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. All three medications are now prescribed in a real-world setting, and an adequate level of knowledge is the starting point for rational use. In this rapid systematic review, we have established what is known about lasmiditan, ubrogepant and rimegepant, highlighting the most relevant safety aspects available from published studies and speculating about their risk of MOH.

Quality of Life Related to Functional Disability in Migraine Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all randomized trials investigating effect of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies on disability related to migraine in adult patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searched from inception to July 2020 with an additional review of clinical trial registries. Disability evaluated using change in patient reported Migraine Disability Assessment scores from baseline were considered for the final analysis. The network meta-analysis was conducted in Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS and R, with the random effects model selected to allow for apparent heterogeneity between studies in the treatment comparison effects.

RESULTS

Overall 41 studies (7095 migraineurs in 9 randomized trials) were included with treatment course of at least 12 weeks. Subcutaneous injections of fremanezumab 675+225+225 mg QM and 225+225+225 mg QM were more effective in reducing disability in chronic and episodic migraine patients, respectively, with higher median difference in Migraine Disability Assessment score from baseline compared with other treatments including erenumab (70 mg QM; 140 mg QM), galcanezumab (120 mg QM; 240 mg QM), and low doses of fremanezumab (225 mg single dose; 675 mg single dose).

DISCUSSION

For short-term prevention of migraine, fremanezumab demonstrated slightly better improvement in disability compared with other anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies in adult patients with migraine.

CGRP and CGRP-receptor as targets of migraine therapy: Brain Prize-2021

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent primary headache with an unclear pathomechanism. During the last 40 years numerous hypotheses have arisen, among them the theory of the trigeminovascular system is the primary one. It serves as a skeleton in successful preclinical studies and in the development of effective therapeutic options for migraine headache.

OBJECTIVE

The Brain Prize (awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation) is the most prestigious tribute in neuroscience. The winners in 2021 were Lars Edvinsson, Peter Goadsby, Michael Moskowitz and Jes Olesen. They are the fathers of the migraine pathomechanism which led to revolutionary new treatments. This review summarizes their landmark findings.

METHODS

Data related to this topic were reviewed from PubMed records published between 1979 and May 2021. Searches were based on preclinical and clinical studies in the covered field. The findings were listed in chronological order. From a therapeutic perspective, only randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis were discussed.

RESULTS

The calcitonin gene-related peptide-related pathogenesis of migraine is based on the activation of the trigeminovascular system. The therapeutic triad for migraine is triptans, gepants and calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSION

In the past 40 years, the systematic work of leading headache scientists has resulted in robust theoretical and therapeutic knowledge in the preclinical and clinical study of migraine.

Comparison of New Pharmacologic Agents With Triptans for Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

New therapeutic classes of migraine-specific treatment have been developed, including 5-hydroxytryptamine1F receptor agonists (lasmiditan) and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists (rimegepant and ubrogepant).

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant vs triptans for acute management of migraine headaches.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and PubMed were searched from inception to March 5, 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Double-blind randomized clinical trials examining current available migraine-specific acute treatments were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline was applied to extract the data according to a predetermined list of variables of interest, and all network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) for freedom from pain (hereafter referred to as pain freedom) at 2 hours after the dose, and the secondary outcomes were ORs for pain relief at 2 hours after the dose and any adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 64 randomized clinical trials were included (46 442 participants; 74%-87% women; age range, 36-43 years). Most of the included treatments were associated with reduced pain at 2 hours compared with placebo. Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain freedom at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.06-2.80] to OR, 3.40 [95% CI, 2.12-5.44]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.07-2.33] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.16-4.52]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.00-2.37] to OR, 3.05 [95% CI, 2.02-4.60]). Most triptans were associated with higher ORs for pain relief at 2 hours compared with lasmiditan (range: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.09-1.96] to OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 2.41-4.55]), rimegepant (range: OR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.01-1.76] to OR, 3.01 [95% CI, 2.33-3.88]), and ubrogepant (range: OR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.02-1.88] to OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.35-4.15]). The comparisons between lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were not statistically significant for both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours. Lasmiditan was associated with the highest risk of any adverse events, and certain triptans (rizatriptan, sumatriptan, and zolmitriptan) were also associated with a higher risk of any adverse events than the calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

For pain freedom or pain relief at 2 hours after the dose, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant were associated with higher ORs compared with placebo but lower ORs compared with most triptans. However, the lack of cardiovascular risks for these new classes of migraine-specific treatments may offer an alternative to triptans.

Mapping Migraine-Specific Quality of Life to Health State Utilities in Patients Receiving Rimegepant

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition, affecting up to 15% of Americans. Recent estimates from a long-term safety study of rimegepant showed evidence of decreased monthly migraine days (MMD) in people with episodic migraine treated with rimegepant 75 mg. The objective of this study was to characterize migraine-specific quality of life version 2.1 (MSQv2) scores and corresponding mapped EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) utility values.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized into two treatment regimens: individuals with 2-14 MMD received rimegepant 75 mg as needed (PRN), and those with 4-14 MMD at baseline who received rimegepant on a fixed every-other-day schedule plus an as needed dose on days they did not treat (QOD + PRN). MSQv2 was mapped to EQ-5D-3L utilities using a validated algorithm. Outcomes were assessed for the PRN arm at baseline weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52 and for the QOD + PRN arm at baseline and week 12.

RESULTS

At baseline, MSQv2 data were available for 1,800 patients: 1,033 with 2-8 MMD in the PRN group, 481 with 9-14 MMD in the PRN group, and 286 with 4-14 MMD in the QOD + PRN group. For all MSQv2 domains as well as mapped utility values, outcomes improved over each study visit. At baseline, EQ-5D-3L utilities were 0.66, 0.63, and 0.65 for the 2-8 MMD PRN, 9-14 MMD PRN, and 4-14 MMD QOD + PRN groups, respectively. At end-of-study, utilities had increased by + 0.09, + 0.10, and + 0.12 for the three groups, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline). Similar trends in improvement were observed across MSQv2 subdomains; all differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant 75 mg, which has been shown to be associated with reduced MMD, is associated with improvement in MSQv2 domains over time, leading to estimated improvement in EQ-5D-3L utilities. While this improvement was observed in all patient-groups, it was most pronounced in those with higher MMD and those taking rimegepant QOD + PRN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT03266588.

Acute Care and Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease involving the brain and its vasculature, typically characterized by recurrent attacks of moderate or severe throbbing headache, accompanied by sensitivity to light and sound, and associated with nausea, vomiting, and inability to move due to worsening of pain. About 30% of migraineurs have some type of aura, most often visual. Migraine attacks, if untreated or suboptimally treated, usually result in significant disability, requiring bed rest and resulting in poor quality of life. Increased frequency of attacks and overuse of acute care medication are significant risks for chronification, resulting in the transformation of episodic migraine into chronic migraine. We aim to review most acute care treatments for migraine.

METHODS

Current treatment options for migraine attacks were reviewed from the selected literature and combined with our clinical experience.

RESULTS

Current acute treatment options for migraine attacks include over-the-counter analgesics, at times combined with caffeine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, opioids, and migraine-specific medications such as triptans and ergots. In the near future, we will probably have 3 gepants (small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide [CGRP] receptor antagonists). The first one was just approved in the United States. A ditan acting as a stimulator of 5-HT1F receptors, was also just approved by the FDA. Stimulation of the trigeminal, vagal, occipital, and even upper arm peripheral nerves through electrical nerve stimulation devices and magnetic stimulation devices are available as alternative, nondrug treatment options. Several devices have already been FDA-allowed for treatment in the United States and/or approved elsewhere, and others will follow soon. Behavioral medicine techniques such as biofeedback training and mindfulness have been available for some time and are often helpful.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of acute care options to treat migraine are available, and others will soon be and will herein be described in further detail. Some medications have been approved by regulatory authorities in countries other than the United States, and some devices have been given a CE Mark in Europe.

Time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: Results from the randomized, double-blind ADVANCE trial

Background

Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Methods

In the double-blind, phase 3 ADVANCE trial, participants with 4–14 migraine days/month were randomized to atogepant 10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. We evaluated the time course of efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. Analyses included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days during each of the three 4-week treatment periods, change in weekly migraine days during weeks 1–4, and proportion of participants with a migraine on each day during the first week.

Results

We analyzed 873 participants (n = 214 atogepant 10 mg, n = 223 atogepant 30 mg, n = 222 atogepant 60 mg, n = 214 placebo). For weeks 1–4, mean change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.1 to −3.9 across atogepant doses vs −1.6 for placebo (p < 0.0001). For weeks 5–8 and 9–12, reductions in mean monthly migraine days ranged from −3.7 to −4.2 for atogepant vs −2.9 for placebo (p ≤ 0.012) and −4.2 to −4.4 for atogepant vs −3.0 for placebo (p < 0.0002), respectively. Mean change from baseline in weekly migraine days in week 1 ranged from −0.77 to −1.03 for atogepant vs −0.29 with placebo (p < 0.0001). Percentages of participants reporting a migraine on post-dose day 1 ranged from 10.8% to 14.1% for atogepant vs 25.2% with placebo (p ≤ 0.0071).

Conclusion

Atogepant demonstrated treatment benefits as early as the first full day after treatment initiation, and sustained efficacy across each 4-week interval during the 12-week treatment period.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03777059

Progress in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks: From Traditional Approaches to Eptinezumab

Migraine is the second cause of disability and of lost years of healthy life worldwide. Migraine is characterized by recurrent headache attacks and accompanying disabling symptoms lasting 4–48 h. In episodic migraine, attacks occur in less than 15 days per month and in chronic migraine, in more than 15 monthly days. Whilst successful translation of pharmacological discoveries into efficacious therapeutics has been achieved in the preventative therapy of chronic migraine, treatment of acute migraine suffers the lack of effective advancements. An effective treatment affords complete freedom from pain two hours after therapy and provides the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) associated with migraine after 2 h. However, available anti-migraine abortive treatments for acute attacks do not represent an effective and safe treatment for all the populations treated. In particular, the most used specific treatment is represented by triptans that offer 2-h sustained freedom from pain achieved in 18–50% of patients but they are contraindicated in coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease due to the vasoconstriction at the basis of their pharmacologic action. The most novel therapies, i.e., gepants and ditans, are without sufficient post-marketing data for secure use. Here, an attempt is proposed to analyse the rational basis and evidence in favour of investigating the efficacy and safety in acute migraine attacks of eptinezumab, i.e., monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) unique for intravenous infusion administration.

Energy and reactivity profile and proton affinity analysis of rimegepant with special reference to its potential activity against SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins using molecular dynamics

Rimegepant is a new medicine developed for the management of chronic headache due to migraine. This manuscript is an attempt to study the various structural, physical, and chemical properties of the molecules. The molecule was optimized using B3LYP functional with 6-311G + (2d,p) basis set. Excited state properties of the compound were studied using CAM-B3LYP functional with same basis sets using IEFPCM model in methanol for the implicit solvent atmosphere. The various electronic descriptors helped to identify the reactivity behavior and stability. The compound is found to possess good nonlinear optical properties in the gas phase. The various intramolecular electronic delocalizations and non-covalent interactions were analyzed and explained. As the compound contain several heterocyclic nitrogen atoms, they have potential proton abstraction features, which was analyzed energetically. The most important result from this study is from the molecular docking analysis which indicates that rimegepant binds irreversibly with three established SARS-CoV-2 proteins with ID 6LU7, 6M03, and 6W63 with docking scores − 9.2988, − 8.3629, and − 9.5421 kcal/mol respectively. Further assessment of docked complexes with molecular dynamics simulations revealed that hydrophobic interactions, water bridges, and π–π interactions play a significant role in stabilizing the ligand within the binding region of respective proteins. MMGBSA-free energies further demonstrated that rimegepant is more stable when complexed with 6LU7 among the selected PDB models. As the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of this molecule are already established, rimegepant can be considered as an ideal candidate with potential for use in the treatment of COVID patients after clinical studies.

Efficacy and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for treatment of chronic migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all randomized trials investigating effects of anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) on adult patients with chronic migraine.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searched from inception to July 2020; and clinical trial registries. The network meta-analysis was conducted in Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS and R, with the random effects model selected to allow for apparent heterogeneity between studies in the treatment comparison effects.

RESULTS

Overall 38 studies (5164 chronic migraineurs in seven randomized trials) were included with treatment course of at least 12 weeks. Fremanezumab 675 + 225 + 225 mg QM (SC) injections were numerically more effective in lowering migraine days with lower MDs compared to eptinezumab 10 mg (IV) (MD: -1.52, 95% CrIs: -4.24, 0.99), eptinezumab 30 mg (IV) (MD: -0.33, 95% CrIs: -3.02, 2.16), eptinezumab 100 mg (IV) (MD: -0.59, 95% CrIs: -2.80, 1.42), eptinezumab 300 mg (IV) (MD: -0.02, 95% CrIs: -2.29, 1.98), erenumab 70 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.17, 95% CrIs: -2.84, 2.25), erenumab 140 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.18, 95% CrIs: -2.87, 2.26), fremanezumab 675 mg (SC) (MD: -0.30, 95% CrIs: -1.81, 1.14), galcanezumab 120 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.71, 95% CrIs: -3.44, 1.55) and galcanezumab 240 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.58, 95% CrIs: -3.09, 1.89), however the results were non-significant. Similarly, the anti-CGRP mAbs were also observed to have comparable safety and immunogenicity with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all doses of anti-CGRP mAbs have comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability based on uncertainties in indirect comparisons for all outcomes, the calculated effect estimates numerically favored high doses of subcutaneous fremanezumab and intravenous eptinezumab as the effective therapy with acceptable safety and tolerability for short term prevention of chronic migraine.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 2: Pharmacological treatment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the second part of the guidelines, which is focused on the pharmacological treatment of migraine, including both the acute treatment of attacks and the prophylaxis of episodic migraine as well as chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. The specific situations that can be encountered in women with migraine are also discussed, including pregnancy, menstrual migraine, contraception and hormonal replacement therapy.

Comprehensive management of adults with chronic migraine: Clinical practice guidelines in Mexico

Introduction:

Migraine is a polygenic multifactorial disorder with a neuronal initiation of a cascade of neurochemical processes leading to incapacitating headaches. Headaches are generally unilateral, throbbing, 4–72 h in duration, and associated with nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and sonophobia. Chronic migraine (CM) is the presence of a headache at least 15 days per month for ≥3 months and has a high global impact on health and economy, and therapeutic guidelines are lacking.

Methods:

Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system, we conducted a search in MEDLINE and Cochrane to investigate the current evidence and generate recommendations of clinical practice on the identification of risk factors and treatment of CM in adults.

Results:

We recommend avoiding overmedication of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); ergotamine; caffeine; opioids; barbiturates; and initiating individualized prophylactic treatment with topiramate eptinezumab, galcanezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, or botulinum toxin. We highlight the necessity of managing comorbidities initially. In the acute management, we recommend NSAIDs, triptans, lasmiditan, and gepants alone or with metoclopramide if nausea or vomiting. Non-pharmacological measures include neurostimulation.

Conclusions:

We have identified the risk factors and treatments available for the management of CM based on a grading system, which facilitates selection for individualized management.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Antagonists: A comprehensive review of safety, efficacy and prescribing information

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVES

Migraine is a disabling disorder that affects individuals of all ages. To date, there are multiple limitations to using guidelines-recommended treatments and preventive therapies. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive clinical review of the safety, efficacy and prescribing information of the emerging calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists. Agents in this new pharmacologic class were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of acute migraine attack pain and the management of episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

A total of 12 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials were identified and included in the review utilizing databases such as clinicaltrial.gov, PubMed and EMBASE. The trials collectively evaluated six CGRP antagonists starting from the orally administered CGRPs such as rimegepant and ubrogepant, to the quarterly IV administered CGRP such as eptinezumab, and the monthly/quarterly subcutaneously administered agents such as erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All agents displayed significant efficacy compared with placebo, measured by reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMD). In addition, CGRP antagonists displayed a great tolerability profile with few adverse effects. These medications were neither associated with any cardiovascular-related adverse effects, nor do they currently have specific contraindications to pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. This can present a safe alternative to a wide range of patients who cannot be appropriately treated with first-line treatments such as triptans. No treatment-related death was reported in any of the clinical trials outlined and discussed.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists are safe and efficacious medications both in treating acute migraine headache pain and the management of episodic and chronic migraine. Head-to-head comparative studies with current guideline-recommended treatments are needed. However, CGRP antagonists are promising agents that present an alternative solution for patients living with migraine.

Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48 hours post-dose, and adverse events. No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs.

RESULTS

Five RCTs were identified as follows: rimegepant study 303 (n = 1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n = 1,672 and n = 1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n = 2,231 and n = 3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48 hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Acute Treatment of Migraine: What has Changed in Pharmacotherapies?

Background

Migraine is the most prevalent neurological disorder and the leading cause of disability in individuals under 50 years of age. Two types of migraine therapies have been defined: acute therapy (abortive or symptomatic treatment), the purpose of which is to interrupt migraine attacks, and preventive treatment (prophylactic treatment), the purpose of which is to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.

Objective

This paper reviews research advances in new agents for acute therapy of migraine.

Material and Methods

This review provides an overview of emerging new drugs for acute treatment of migraine based on clinical evidence and summarizes the milestones of different stages of clinical development.

Results

Two new formulations of sumatriptan, DFN-11 (3 mg doses of subcutaneous sumatriptan) and DFN-02 (a nasal spray of sumatriptan 10 mg and a permeation-enhancing excipient), have been developed, and both of them showed a fast-onset action with efficacy for acute treatment of migraine with fewer adverse events. New drug discovery programs shifted the focus to the development of ditans, a group of antimigraine drugs targeting 5-HT_1F receptors. Only lasmiditan has progressed to phase III clinical trials and was finally approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute migraine treatment. The other target for acute therapy is CGRP receptor antagonists, namely, gepants. Ubrogepant and rimegepant demonstrated statistically significant efficacy, and both were recently approved by the FDA. These 5-HT_1F receptor agonists and CGRP receptor antagonists did not cause vasoconstriction, offering advantages over the current mainstay of specific acute migraine treatment.

Conclusions

Overall, these new agents have expanded the available acute therapies for migraine treatment and will likely change the strategy with which we treat patients with migraine in the future.

Ditans vs Gepants: A Systematic Review and Indirect Network Meta-Analysis for Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety

Background

An acute attack of migraine, incapacitates the migraineurs, and is widely prevalent. And to warden off its symptoms, recently two groups of drugs have been approved and launched.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis is to evaluate and summarize the effectiveness of these pharmacological interventions in managing the aforesaid disease.

Material and Methods

An extensive literature search was done through Cochrane library, Pub Med, clincialtrials.gov, for a period of 5 years (2015-2020), using key words: lasmiditan; ubrogepant; rimegepant; and acute migraine. Randomized double-blind phase III clinical trials, published in English language, were included which explored the efficacy and safety of these drugs. The outcomes of this meta-analysis included proportion of patients' headache, most bothersome symptoms free, and no disability at all at 2 h post-dose, with sustained pain freedom 2-24 h, and experiencing any adverse event. An indirect network meta-analysis was also conducted to determine the comparative effectiveness of these drugs.

Results

A total of seven RCTs involving 7266 patients were included. In general, the new drugs demonstrated better result in all the efficacy parameters. The adverse events were observed in treatment group compared to placebo. While in the indirect comparison, lasmiditan emerged to be superior in all the outcomes, except for sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (rimegepant was better). The adverse events were more with lasmiditan.

Conclusion

All the newer drugs have shown significant improvement in the outcomes analyzed. Lasmiditan appears to be superior among the newer drugs in efficacy; however it has more adverse effects.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

FINDINGS

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Ubrogepant: An Oral Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Receptor Antagonist for Abortive Migraine Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of ubrogepant as an abortive migraine treatment.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed was performed (January 2006 through May 2021) using the following search terms: ubrogepant, calcitonin gene related peptide, and abortive migraine therapy.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies evaluating ubrogepant's pharmacology, efficacy, and safety in humans for the treatment of migraine were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of migraine via data from ACHIEVE I and II. From ACHIEVE I, ubrogepant demonstrated superiority to placebo in freedom from migraine pain at 2 hours postdose (50-mg dose: odds ratio [OR] = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.25-2.66; 100-mg dose: OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.41-2.95) and freedom from most bothersome symptom (MBS; 50-mg dose: OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.27-2.28; 100-mg dose: OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.22-2.17). ACHIEVE II trial demonstrated efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg compared with placebo (2-hour pain freedom: OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29; 2-hour MBS freedom: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.25-2.20).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ubrogepant is a viable option for patients who are unable to tolerate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or triptan therapy because of ineffective relief or contraindications that limit use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ubrogepant is a well-tolerated effective abortive migraine treatment that bridges a gap in therapy for many patients who previously could not tolerate other first-line treatments.

Acute Migraine Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is a disabling disease of attacks of moderate to severe pain with associated symptoms. Every person with migraine requires treatment for acute attacks. Treatments can range from behavioral management and nonspecific medications to migraine-specific medications and neuromodulation. For many with migraine, having a combination of tools allows for effective treatment of all types of attacks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past several years, four neuromodulation devices have been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of acute migraine, and three medications with novel mechanisms of action have been FDA approved. They add to the arsenal available to people with migraine and focus on migraine-specific pathways to allow for precise care with fewer side effects.

SUMMARY

This article discusses acute migraine therapy, focusing on best-level evidence.

Novel Therapies in Acute Migraine Management: Small-Molecule Calcitonin Gene-Receptor Antagonists and Serotonin 1F Receptor Agonist

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents-ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant-representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura.

DATA SOURCES

The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative.

DATA SYNTHESIS

CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan's adverse effect profile may limit its use.

Acute and Preventive Management of Migraine during Menstruation and Menopause

Migraine course is influenced by female reproductive milestones, including menstruation and perimenopause; menstrual migraine (MM) represents a distinct clinical entity. Increased susceptibility to migraine during menstruation and in perimenopause is probably due to fluctuations in estrogen levels. The present review provides suggestions for the treatment of MM and perimenopausal migraine. MM is characterized by long, severe, and poorly treatable headaches, for which the use of long-acting triptans and/or combined treatment with triptans and common analgesics is advisable. Short-term prophylaxis with triptans and/or estrogen treatment is another viable option in women with regular menstrual cycles or treated with combined hormonal contraceptives; conventional prevention may also be considered depending on the attack-related disability and the presence of attacks unrelated to menstruation. In women with perimenopausal migraine, hormonal treatments should aim at avoiding estrogen fluctuations. Future research on migraine treatments will benefit from the ascertainment of the interplay between female sex hormones and the mechanisms of migraine pathogenesis, including the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab.

METHODS

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12.

RESULTS

When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains.

CONCLUSIONS

When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.

Diagnosis and Management of Headache: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 90% of people in the US experience headache during their lifetime. Migraine is the second leading cause of years lived with disability worldwide.

OBSERVATIONS

Primary headache disorders are defined as headaches that are unrelated to an underlying medical condition and are categorized into 4 groups: migraine, tension-type headache, trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, and other primary headache disorders. Studies evaluating prevalence in more than 100 000 people reported that tension-type headache affected 38% of the population, while migraine affected 12% and was the most disabling. Secondary headache disorders are defined as headaches due to an underlying medical condition and are classified according to whether they are due to vascular, neoplastic, infectious, or intracranial pressure/volume causes. Patients presenting with headache should be evaluated to determine whether their headache is most likely a primary or a secondary headache disorder. They should be evaluated for symptoms or signs that suggest an urgent medical problem such as an abrupt onset, neurologic signs, age 50 years and older, presence of cancer or immunosuppression, and provocation by physical activities or postural changes. Acute migraine treatment includes acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and combination products that include caffeine. Patients not responsive to these treatments may require migraine-specific treatments including triptans (5-HT1B/D agonists), which eliminate pain in 20% to 30% of patients by 2 hours, but are accompanied by adverse effects such as transient flushing, tightness, or tingling in the upper body in 25% of patients. Patients with or at high risk for cardiovascular disease should avoid triptans because of vasoconstrictive properties. Acute treatments with gepants, antagonists to receptors for the inflammatory neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide, such as rimegepant or ubrogepant, can eliminate headache symptoms for 2 hours in 20% of patients but have adverse effects of nausea and dry mouth in 1% to 4% of patients. A 5-HT1F agonist, lasmiditan, is also available for acute migraine treatment and appears safe in patients with cardiovascular risk factors. Preventive treatments include antihypertensives, antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, and onabotulinumtoxinA, which reduce migraine by 1 to 3 days per month relative to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Headache disorders affect approximately 90% of people during their lifetime. Among primary headache disorders, migraine is most debilitating and can be treated acutely with analgesics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, triptans, gepants, and lasmiditan.

A phase 1 randomized study of hemodynamic effects and pharmacokinetic interactions during concomitant use of rimegepant and sumatriptan in healthy adults

Objective:

This randomized, partially-blinded, placebo-controlled study evaluated hemodynamic effects, pharmacokinetic interactions, and safety of concomitant administration of oral rimegepant and subcutaneous sumatriptan.

Methods:

Healthy non-smokers aged ≥18 and ≤40 years (men) or ≥18 and ≤50 years (women) were enrolled. On Day 1, subjects received 12 mg of sumatriptan as 2 subcutaneous 6 mg injections separated by 1 hour. From Days 2 to 4, subjects received rimegepant or placebo once daily (randomized 6 to 1, rimegepant to placebo). On Day 5, subjects received rimegepant or placebo, followed 2 hours later by 2 subcutaneous 6 mg injections of sumatriptan, separated by 1 hour. Sumatriptan was administered at the same times as on Day 1.

Results:

All 42 dosed subjects were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the time-weighted average of mean arterial pressure, diastolic blood pressure, or systolic blood pressure between treatment with rimegepant + sumatriptan and sumatriptan alone. Co-administration of rimegepant and sumatriptan had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of either drug. Overall, 93% (39/42) of subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event; injection site reaction was most common (60% [29/42]).

Conclusions:

Concomitant administration of oral rimegepant and subcutaneous sumatriptan to healthy adults was without hemodynamic or pharmacokinetic interaction and was safe and well tolerated.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists: Heterocyclic modification of a novel azepinone lead

In our efforts to identify orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonists, we previously discovered a novel series of orally available azepinone derivatives that unfortunately also exhibited the unwanted property of potent time-dependent human CYP3A4 inhibition. Through heterocyclic replacement of the indazole ring, we discovered a series of heterocycle derivatives as high-affinity CGRP receptor antagonists. Some of them showed reasonable oral exposures, and the imidazolone derivatives that showed good oral exposure also exhibited substantially reduced time-dependent CYP3A4 inhibition. Several compounds showed strong in vivo efficacy in our marmoset facial blood flow assay with up to 87% inhibition of CGRP-induced activity. However, oral bioavailability generally remained low, emphasizing the challenges we and others encountered in discovering clinical development candidates for this difficult Class B GPCR target.

Ubrogepant in the Acute Management of Migraine: A Narrative Review

Ubrogepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist that received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the acute treatment of migraine with and without aura in adults. The ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II Phase III clinical trials showed that ubrogepant was superior to placebo for pain freedom and freedom of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours after medication intake. The 52-week open label extension of the Phase III trials demonstrated safety of ubrogepant. A real-world study conducted at a tertiary headache center also confirmed the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant. Adverse event rates were higher in the real-world population. Studies are needed to evaluate its long-term efficacy and safety, especially in the setting of co-administration with other CGRP modulating therapies such as the CGRP monoclonal antibodies.

Migraine with Brainstem Aura Accompanied by Disorders of Consciousness

Migraine with brainstem aura (MBA) accompanied by disorders of consciousness (DOC) is a rare subtype of migraine. The pathophysiology of MBA with DOC has not been elucidated yet. Some patients have a family history of migraine, and women are more affected than men. The aura symptoms are diverse; however, when MBA is combined with DOC, the clinical manifestations are more complicated. Coma is the most common clinical manifestation. The overall duration of the patient’s DOC is short and can often return to normal within half an hour. Headache often occurs after regaining consciousness and can also occur at the same time as DOC. The most common headache is located at the occipital region. Although DOC is reversible, considering the current small number of cases, we still need to improve our understanding of the disease to avoid misdiagnosis. The MBA patient’s electroencephalogram and cerebral blood flow perfusion may have transient changes and may return to normal in the interictal period or after the DOC. Although triptans have traditionally been contraindicated in MBA under drug instructions, the evidence of basilar artery constriction, as postulated in MBA, is lacking. Lasmiditan is currently the first and only 5-HT 1F receptor agonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibody therapies may be the most promising for future consideration. Here, the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic tools, and treatment progress for MBA with DOC are reviewed.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom.

RESULTS

Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

A year in pharmacology: new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020

While the COVID-19 pandemic also affected the work of regulatory authorities, the US Food and Drug Administration approved a total of 53 new drugs in 2020, one of the highest numbers in the past decades. Most newly approved drugs related to oncology (34%) and neurology (15%). We discuss these new drugs by level of innovation they provide, i.e., first to treat a condition, first using a novel mechanisms of action, and "others." Six drugs were first in indication, 15 first using a novel mechanism of action, and 32 other. This includes many drugs for the treatment of orphan indications and some for the treatment of tropical diseases previously neglected for commercial reasons. Small molecules continue to dominate new drug approvals, followed by antibodies. Of note, newly approved drugs also included small-interfering RNAs and antisense oligonucleotides. These data show that the trend for declines in drug discovery and development has clearly been broken.

Discovery of a First-In-Class Small Molecule Antagonist against the Adrenomedullin-2 Receptor: Structure-Activity Relationships and Optimization

Class B G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) remain an underexploited target for drug development. The calcitonin receptor (CTR) family is particularly challenging, as its receptors are heteromers comprising two distinct components: the calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CLR) or calcitonin receptor (CTR) together with one of three accessory proteins known as receptor activity-modifying proteins (RAMPs). CLR/RAMP1 forms a CGRP receptor, CLR/RAMP2 forms an adrenomedullin-1 (AM1) receptor, and CLR/RAMP3 forms an adrenomedullin-2 (AM2) receptor. The CTR/RAMP complexes form three distinct amylin receptors. While the selective blockade of AM2 receptors would be therapeutically valuable, inhibition of AM1 receptors would cause clinically unacceptable increased blood pressure. We report here a systematic study of structure-activity relationships that has led to the development of first-in-class AM2 receptor antagonists. These compounds exhibit therapeutically valuable properties with 1000-fold selectivity over the AM1 receptor. These results highlight the therapeutic potential of AM2 antagonists.

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Pediatric Episodic Migraine with Aura: A Unique Entity?

Migraine headache is a common cause of pain and disability in children and adolescents and is a major contributor to frequently missed school days and limitations in activities. Of children and adolescents with migraine headache, approximately one-third have migraine with aura (MA). MA is often considered to be similar to migraine without aura (MO), and thus, many studies do not stratify patients based on the presence of aura. Because of this, treatment recommendations are often analogous between MA and MO, with a few notable exceptions. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current evidence demonstrating the unique pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, differential diagnosis, co-morbidities, and treatment recommendations and responses for pediatric MA.

Evaluating rimegepant for the treatment of migraine

IntroductionCalcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a vasodilatory neuropeptide involved in the pathophysiology of migraine, a highly disabling neurovascular disorder characterized by severe headache attacks. Rimegepant is a small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist approved by the FDA for acute treatment of migraine and currently under investigation for migraine prophylaxis. Areas covered The authors summarize available data on safety and tolerability of rimegepant and provide insights on its use for acute migraine treatment. Expert opinion Rimegepant seems to be well tolerated and superior to placebo for two-hour pain freedom. Moreover, rimegepant does not induce vasoconstriction, and is therefore not contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular disease, nor does it seem to induce medication-overuse headache. However, the therapeutic gain of rimegepant is only small, and since CGRP is a vital rescue molecule during ischemia, blocking the CGRP pathway might be detrimental. Although current evidence on CGRP receptor blockade has shown no cardiovascular adverse events, clinicians should remain critical about the use of rimegepant, as well as other CGRP (receptor)-inhibiting drugs. Further research should focus on determining the consequences of long-term CGRP blockade, especially during ischemia or cardiovascular disease, the exact receptors antagonized by rimegepant, and potential effects of combining rimegepant with other antimigraine treatments.

Rimegepant: acute treatment for migraine headaches

Migraine headache treatment is quickly evolving. There have been three new acute migraine treatment options (i.e., lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant) and four new preventive migraine treatment options (i.e., erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab) released in the past 3 years. The new migraine treatments are focusing on pathways within the newly, better understood neurovascular hypothesis that further describes the pathophysiology of migraine headaches in more detail than before. The discovery of vasoactive peptides, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide, has led to the development of many of these migraine agents. Rimegepant is one of these newly approved agents for acute migraine treatment in adults with or without aura. Rimegepant has been found to decrease pain and symptoms associated with migraine attacks and is generally well-tolerated.

Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications.

METHOD

This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review.

RESULTS

We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.

Gepants, calcitonin-gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: what could be their role in migraine treatment?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is the second leading cause of years lived with disability after back pain. Poor tolerability, contraindications, drug-drug interactions and efficacy limited to a subpopulation make new approaches necessary for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. The study of the calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway over the last decades is a good example of translational medicine leading to directed therapies for patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

After some of the first-generation CGRP receptor antagonists, gepants, were not fully developed because of hepatotoxicity, the second generation of gepants have shown efficacy, safety and tolerability in recent clinical trials.

SUMMARY

Both rimegepant and ubrogepant have published positive randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials data. Vazegepant is the first intranasal gepant for the acute treatment of migraine and has announced a positive phase II/III study. Daily rimegepant use has preliminary data to suggest efficacy. Atogepant has shown efficacy in migraine prevention in a phase II/III study. Most importantly, hepatotoxicity has not been reported in specifically designed phase I studies or long-term extension studies, with rimegepant or ubrogepant, or in a preventive study with atogepant. Given the preventive effect, it seems likely that gepants will not lead to medication overuse headache. They will likely have no cardiovascular warnings. Because of the particular benefit gepants may represent for these groups of patients, specific studies in patients with medication overuse headache, as well as those with comorbid cardiovascular diseases, would be of considerable interest.

Comparative Efficacy of Oral Calcitonin-Gene-Related Peptide Antagonists for the Treatment of Acute Migraine: Updated Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a new therapeutic target in migraine-a common disorder resulting in reduced quality of life. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of five oral CGRP antagonists with that of a placebo and triptans against acute migraine via meta-analysis.

METHODS

Suitable randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) to compare the efficacy of oral CGRP antagonists with that of a placebo and triptans against acute migraine. Review Manager 5.4 was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 17 trials met the eligibility criteria and were studied in detail. The CGRP antagonists were significantly more effective than the placebo with respect to outcomes such as pain freedom at 2 h post-dose (odds ratio = 2.11; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 1.90-2.35) and pain relief at 2 h post-dose (odds ratio = 1.94; 95% CIs = 1.70-2.21). Similar results were found in the subgroup analysis conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of the FDA-approved oral CGRP antagonists (ubrogepant and rimegepant) and placebo. However, the CGRP antagonists were less effective than the triptans with respect to outcomes such as pain freedom at 2 h post-dose (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% CIs = 0.55-0.78) and pain relief at 2 h post-dose (odds ratio = 0.78; 95% CIs = 0.66-0.93).

CONCLUSION

CGRP antagonists are more effective than placebo against acute migraine; however, further studies are required to consider CGRP antagonists as standard first-line treatment for acute migraine instead of triptans, especially in patients with co-existing cardiovascular diseases.

Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rimegepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that has shown efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine. We aimed to compare the efficacy of rimegepant with placebo for preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 92 sites in the USA. Adults with at least a 1-year history of migraine were recruited. After a 4-week observation period, eligible participants were randomised using an interactive web response system to oral rimegepant 75 mg or matching placebo every other day for 12 weeks (double-blind treatment phase). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from the 4-week observation period in the mean number of migraine days per month in the last 4 weeks of the double-blind treatment phase (weeks 9-12). Participants who received at least one dose of their assigned study medication and who had 14 days or more of data in the observation period and 14 days or more of data for at least one 4-week interval during the double-blind treatment phase were analysed for efficacy. Those who received at least one dose of study medication were analysed for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03732638.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 14, 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, 1591 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility, of whom 747 were randomly allocated either rimegepant (n=373) or placebo (n=374). 695 participants were included in the analysis for efficacy, of whom 348 were assigned rimegepant and 347 were allocated placebo. Rimegepant was superior to placebo on the primary endpoint of change in the mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12. The change from the observation period in mean number of migraine days per month during weeks 9-12 was -4·3 days (95% CI -4·8 to -3·9) with rimegepant and -3·5 days (-4·0 to -3·0) with placebo (least squares mean difference -0·8 days, 95% CI -1·46 to -0·20; p=0·0099). 741 participants received study medication and were included in the safety analysis. 133 (36%) of 370 patients who received rimegepant reported an adverse event, compared with 133 (36%) of 371 who received placebo. Seven (2%) participants who received rimegepant and four (1%) who received placebo discontinued the study due to an adverse event; no patients died.

INTERPRETATION

Taken every other day, rimegepant was effective for preventive treatment of migraine. Tolerability was similar to that of placebo, and no unexpected or serious safety issues were noted.

FUNDING

Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Novel synthetic treatment options for migraine

Introduction: Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders. Nowadays, the 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonists, namely triptans, are considered as the standard of care for migraine acute treatment. However, triptans have limitations in some patients, such as incomplete pain relief, headache recurrence, and cardiovascular contraindications. New 5-HT_1F receptor agonists, namely ditans, and calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, namely gepants, have been developed as migraine-specific treatments.Areas covered: This paper reviews the available data from RCTs to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine and atogepant for the prevention of migraine.Expert opinion: Available data suggest that lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant might not have a clinical efficacy similar to triptans. Lasmiditan did not cause the typical triptan side effects but was associated with central nervous system side effects, causing temporary driving impairment. On the contrary, the new generation of gepants showed a placebo-like tolerability profile and the absence of a specific pattern of side effects. Future studies on lasmiditan and gepants with respect to established effective comparators are mandatory to support phase III results and to help clinicians to balance the benefit/risk profiles of the various acute and preventive medications.

Real-world Experience with Remote Electrical Neuromodulation in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a nonpharmacological acute migraine treatment that stimulates upper-arm peripheral nerves. The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of REN for acute treatment of migraine in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Real-world data were collected from patients who were using REN (Nerivio®, Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd., Israel) between October 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020. Patients recorded their symptoms at baseline, two hours, and 24 hours post-treatment. Patients were stratified based on the type of visit and provider; in-person visits with headache specialists (HS group) or virtual visits with nonheadache specialists (NHS group). Efficacy outcome focused on intra-individual consistency of response across multiple attacks.

RESULTS

We found that 58.9% (662/1,123) of the patients in the HS group and 74.2% (23/31) of the patients in the NHS group experienced pain relief at two hours in at least 50% of their treated attacks and 20.0% (268/1,339) of the patients in the HS group and 35.6% (16/45) of the patients in the NHS group experienced pain freedom at two hours in at least 50% of their treated attacks. The effects of REN on associated symptoms and improvement in function were also consistent in both groups. The incidence of device-related adverse events was very low (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data confirm that REN results in meaningful clinical benefits with minimal side effects. REN may provide an effective drug-free treatment option for achieving consistent relief from migraine symptoms and may reduce the use of acute medications.

Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics and Drug-Drug Interactions of New Anti-Migraine Drugs-Lasmiditan, Gepants, and Calcitonin-Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies

In the last few years, there have been significant advances in migraine management and prevention. Lasmiditan, ubrogepant, rimegepant and monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab) are new drugs that were launched on the US pharmaceutical market; some of them also in Europe. This publication reviews the available worldwide references on the safety of these anti-migraine drugs with a focus on the possible drug–drug (DDI) or drug–food interactions. As is known, bioavailability of a drug and, hence, its pharmacological efficacy depend on its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, which may be altered by drug interactions. This paper discusses the interactions of gepants and lasmiditan with, i.a., serotonergic drugs, CYP3A4 inhibitors, and inducers or breast cancer resistant protein (BCRP) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) inhibitors. In the case of monoclonal antibodies, the issue of pharmacodynamic interactions related to the modulation of the immune system functions was addressed. It also focuses on the effect of monoclonal antibodies on expression of class Fc gamma receptors (FcγR).

Combined onabotulinumtoxinA/atogepant treatment blocks activation/sensitization of high-threshold and wide-dynamic range neurons

Background

OnabotulinumtoxinA and agents that block calcitonin gene‒receptor peptide action have both been found to have anti-migraine effects, but they inhibit different populations of meningeal nociceptors. We therefore tested the effects of combined treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA and the calcitonin gene‒receptor peptide antagonist atogepant on activation/sensitization of trigeminovascular neurons by cortical spreading depression.

Material and methods

Single-unit recordings were obtained of high-threshold and wide-dynamic-range neurons in the spinal trigeminal nucleus, and cortical spreading depression was then induced in anesthetized rats that had received scalp injections of onabotulinumtoxinA 7 days earlier and intravenous atogepant infusion 1 h earlier. The control group received scalp saline injections and intravenous vehicle infusion.

Results

OnabotulinumtoxinA/atogepant pretreatment prevented cortical spreading depression-induced activation and sensitization in both populations (control: Activation in 80% of high-threshold and 70% of wide-dynamic-range neurons, sensitization in 80% of high-threshold and 60% of wide-dynamic-range neurons; treatment: activation in 10% of high-threshold and 0% of wide-dynamic-range neurons, sensitization in 0% of high-threshold and 5% of wide-dynamic-range neurons).

Discussion

We propose that the robust inhibition of high-threshold and wide-dynamic-range neurons by the combination treatment was achieved through dual blockade of the Aδ and C classes of meningeal nociceptors. Combination therapy that inhibits meningeal C-fibers and prevents calcitonin gene‒receptor peptide from activating its receptors on Aδ-meningeal nociceptors may be more effective than a monotherapy in reducing migraine days per month in patients with chronic migraine.

Update on Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Antagonism in the Treatment of Migraine

The discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine has promoted a new era in migraine treatment: CGRP antagonism. Two classes of medications are currently available: small molecules targeting the CGRP receptor and monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP receptor or CGRP ligand. The revolution of these medications is represented by blurring the borders between acute and preventive treatments, episodic and chronic migraine, naïve and refractory patients and even between migraine and other headache disorders.