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

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Pharmacological strategies to treat attacks of episodic migraine in adults

INTRODUCTION

Migraine patients prioritize early complete relief of headache and associated symptoms, sustained freedom of pain, and good tolerability. One major obstacle for the successful use of drug treatment of migraine attack is that the speed of action of triptans, 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonists, is delayed.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the author discusses the following features of acute migraine drugs: pharmacology; pharmacokinetics, and absorption of drugs during migraine attacks. Next, dose-response curves for effect; and the delayed onset of action is reviewed. In the more clinical part of the review, the following items are discussed: overall clinical judgments; comparison of triptans; comparison of triptans with NSAIDs; early intervention with triptans; medication-overuse headache; comments on the effect of gepants; and the general principle of acute migraine therapy.

EXPERT OPINION

The delay in the onset of effect of acute migraine drugs is likely due to a complex antimigraine system involving more than one site of action. Investigations into the mechanisms of the delay should have a high priority, both in studies with animals, migraine models, and in migraine patients during attacks. Non-oral administration of antimigraine drugs resulting in early absorption of drugs should be developed as they possibly also can increase E_max.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide: A promising bridge between cancer development and cancer-associated pain in oral squamous cell carcinoma

Nerves have been widely demonstrated to exert major effects in tumor-associated microenvironments. Due to the characteristic innervation of the oral cavity and the fact that cancer-associated pain is a distinct feature of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), the sensory nerves may dominate in the OSCC-nerve microenvironment. As the most abundant neuropeptide in the trigeminal ganglion, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) exerts a dual effect on cancer development and cancer-associated pain in various types of cancer. The present review explored the potential molecular mechanisms of the roles of CGRP in cancer development and cancer-associated pain, suggesting that CGRP may be a promising therapeutic target for OSCC.

Rimegepant Orally Disintegrating Tablet for Acute Migraine Treatment: A Review

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and place in therapy of rimegepant for treatment of migraine.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive PubMed and Cochrane search (1985 to May 2020) was performed utilizing the keywords rimegepant, Nurtec, orally disintegrating tablet, migraine, migraine headache, migraine disorder, calcitonin gene-related peptide, and calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist. Additional data were obtained from the references of identified articles, manufacturer's product labeling and website, ClinicalTrials.gov, and governmental sources.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language trials evaluating oral rimegepant were included for this review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) is Food and Drug Administration approved for the treatment of migraine. According to data from 3 phase 3 randomized controlled trials, rimegepant has been shown to significantly improve freedom from pain at 2 hours after the dose and freedom from the most bothersome symptom 2 hours postdose. Additional outcomes improved include freedom from photophobia and phonophobia at 2 hours postdose and pain relief 2 hours after the dose. Adverse effects of rimegepant include nausea, urinary tract infection, and dizziness.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Orally disintegrating rimegepant provides a novel mechanism of action for the treatment of acute migraine. When patients experience inadequate relief from other therapies, have contraindications to triptans, or are unable to tolerate the adverse effects of triptans, rimegepant is a promising therapeutic option.

CONCLUSION

Rimegepant ODT is an efficacious migraine treatment option with a novel mechanism of action, convenient dosage form, and limited adverse effect profile.

Onset of action in placebo-controlled migraine attacks trials: A literature review and recommendation

BACKGROUND

Migraine patients want acute treatment to provide complete relief of the migraine attack within 30 minutes. Traditionally, "speed of onset of effect" is evaluated by estimating the time-point for first statistical separation of drug and placebo. The estimated onset of effect can be a few percent difference of patients being pain free in very large randomised, controlled trials. This difference, however, can be clinically irrelevant.

METHODS

Placebo-controlled randomised, controlled trials with pain freedom results from 30 min to 2-4 hours were retrieved from the literature. For each time-point, the therapeutic gain (drug minus placebo) (TG) was calculated. Therapeutic gain for being pain free of 5% was chosen for the definition of "onset of action", since this is approximately 1/3 of the 16% TG and 1/4 of 21% of TG for sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 22 time-effect curves based on randomised, controlled trials were analysed. Based on the "onset of action" of 5% pain freedom, the evaluated drugs and administration forms can be classified as follows: i) Early time to onset, ≤30 min (three randomised, controlled trials); ii) medium time to onset, 60 min (nine randomised, controlled trials); iii) delayed time to onset, 90-120 min (10 randomised, controlled trials).

CONCLUSION

Only three non-oral administration forms with a triptan (subcutaneous sumatriptan and nasal zolmitriptan) resulted in an "onset of action" at ≥30 min; in the future, early onset of action should be a priority in the development of new drugs or new administration-forms for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Evaluation of green light exposure on headache frequency and quality of life in migraine patients: A preliminary one-way cross-over clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological management of migraine can be ineffective for some patients. We previously demonstrated that exposure to green light resulted in antinociception and reversal of thermal and mechanical hypersensitivity in rodent pain models. Given the safety of green light emitting diodes, we evaluated green light as a potential therapy in patients with episodic or chronic migraine.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We recruited (29 total) patients, of whom seven had episodic migraine and 22 had chronic migraine. We used a one-way cross-over design consisting of exposure for 1-2 hours daily to white light emitting diodes for 10 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period followed by exposure for 1-2 hours daily to green light emitting diodes for 10 weeks. Patients were allowed to continue current therapies and to initiate new treatments as directed by their physicians. Outcomes consisted of patient-reported surveys. The primary outcome measure was the number of headache days per month. Secondary outcome measures included patient-reported changes in the intensity and frequency of the headaches over a two-week period and other quality of life measures including ability to fall and stay asleep, and ability to perform work. Changes in pain medications were obtained to assess potential reduction.

RESULTS

When seven episodic migraine and 22 chronic migraine patients were analyzed as separate cohorts, white light emitting diodes produced no significant change in headache days in either episodic migraine or chronic migraine patients. Combining data from the episodic migraine and chronic migraine groups showed that white light emitting diodes produced a small, but statistically significant reduction in headache days from (days ± SEM) 18.2 ± 1.8 to 16.5 ± 2.01 days. Green light emitting diodes resulted in a significant decrease in headache days from 7.9 ± 1.6 to 2.4 ± 1.1 and from 22.3 ± 1.2 to 9.4 ± 1.6 in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients, respectively. While some improvement in secondary outcomes was observed with white light emitting diodes, more secondary outcomes with significantly greater magnitude including assessments of quality of life, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Headache Impact Test-6, and Five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional survey without reported side effects were observed with green light emitting diodes. Conclusions regarding pain medications reduction with green light emitting diode exposure were not possible. No side effects of light therapy were reported. None of the patients in the study reported initiation of new therapies.

DISCUSSION

Green light emitting diodes significantly reduced the number of headache days in people with episodic migraine or chronic migraine. Additionally, green light emitting diodes significantly improved multiple secondary outcome measures including quality of life and intensity and duration of the headache attacks. As no adverse events were reported, green light emitting diodes may provide a treatment option for those patients who prefer non-pharmacological therapies or may be considered in complementing other treatment strategies. Limitations of this study are the small number of patients evaluated. The positive data obtained support implementation of larger clinical trials to determine possible effects of green light emitting diode therapy.This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov under NCT03677206.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of orally administered atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults: a double-blind, randomised phase 2b/3 trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant is an orally administered, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist under investigation for treatment of migraine. We aimed to examine a range of oral doses for safety, tolerability, and efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

In this double-blind, phase 2b/3 trial, adults (aged 18-75 years), with a history (≥1 year) of migraine and 4-14 migraine days per month, were randomly assigned 2:1:2:2:1:1 (by means of a sequence generated by the statistical programming department of the sponsor, and operationalised through an automated interactive web-based response system) to receive placebo or atogepant 10 mg once daily, 30 mg once daily, 60 mg once daily, 30 mg twice daily, or 60 mg twice daily, in matching capsules. Participants, site personnel, and all study sponsor personnel were masked to treatment allocations. The study was done in 78 academic and private practice settings in the USA. The primary outcome was change from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks of treatment using a modified intention-to-treat approach. The overall type I error rate for multiple comparisons across active treatment doses was controlled at the 0·05 level by means of a graphic approach. The main outcomes to assess safety and tolerability were adverse event recordings. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02848326 and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 6, 2016, and April 23, 2018, of 1772 individuals screened, 834 were randomly assigned and 825 received one dose or more of study medication: 186 received placebo, 93 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 183 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 186 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 86 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 91 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Overall, 714 (87%) of 825 participants were female, 628 (76%) were white, median migraine duration was 17·5 years (IQR 10·0-28·0), and 232 (28%) had previously used preventive treatment. The primary efficacy analysis included 795 patients: 178 received placebo, 92 atogepant 10 mg once daily, 182 atogepant 30 mg once daily, 177 atogepant 60 mg once daily, 79 atogepant 30 mg twice daily, and 87 atogepant 60 mg twice daily. Across the 12-week treatment period, all five atogepant groups showed significant least-squares mean (SE) change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days versus placebo: atogepant 10 mg once daily -4·0 (0·3; p=0·024), 30 mg once daily -3·8 (0·2; p=0·039), 60 mg once daily -3·6 (0·2; p=0·039), 30 mg twice daily -4·2 (0·4; p=0·0034), and 60 mg twice daily -4·1 (0·3; p=0·0031); placebo -2·9 (0·2). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) across all groups were nausea (range 5% [5/93] for 10 mg once daily to 12% [22/186] for 60 mg once daily vs 5% [9/186] for placebo) and fatigue (1% [1/93] for 10 mg once daily to 10% [9/91] for 60 mg twice daily vs 3% [6/186] for placebo). Treatment-related TEAE frequency ranged from 18% (17/93) for 10 mg once daily to 26% (24/91) for 60 mg twice daily, versus 16% (30/186) for placebo. Seven participants reported a total of eight serious TEAEs (two participants each in the placebo, 30 mg once-daily, and 60 mg once-daily groups, and one participant in the 10 mg once-daily group). TEAEs leading to discontinuation were reported in 33 (5%) of 639 atogepant participants and 5 (3%) of 186 of those randomised to placebo. All serious TEAEs were unrelated to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

All doses of oral atogepant were associated with a significant decrease in monthly migraine days over 12 weeks compared with placebo. Atogepant was safe and well tolerated over 12 weeks, supporting its phase 3 development for the preventive treatment of migraine.

FUNDING

Allergan (before its acquisition by AbbVie).

Safety of Rimegepant, an Oral CGRP Receptor Antagonist, Plus CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for Migraine

Objective

Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Background

The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on‐treatment adverse events (AEs).

Methods

This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open‐label, long‐term safety study in adults with 2‐14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2‐8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks.

Results

The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4‐week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ≥1 on‐treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ≥2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment‐related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal.

Conclusion

Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

Gepants for abortive treatment of migraine: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of gepants for abortive treatment of migraine by network meta-analysis.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Publications, which were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about gepants for abortive treatment of migraine, were acquired from Pubmed and Cochrane Library. The literatures screening and quality assessment followed the Cochrane handbook. Review manager 5.3 and Addis v1.16.8 were utilized for data analyzing.

RESULTS

Totally, 15 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis. The trials enrolled were with high quality. There are 7 treatments were analyzed: BI 44370 TA, MK-3207, olcegepant, rimegepant, telcagepant, ubrogepant, and placebo. Of these trials, 11,118 patients and 10,917 patients were assigned to one of 7 treatments randomly for efficacy assessment and safety assessment, respectively. In meta-analysis of direct comparisons, all gepants were superior to placebo in achieving pain freedom 2 hr postdose and only rimegepant and telcagepant were higher than placebo in incidence of any adverse events. In network meta-analysis, the rank best 3 drugs were olcegepant, BI 44370 TA, and MK-3207 for efficacy outcomes. And the rank best 3 drugs were BI 44370 TA, placebo, and ubrogepant for safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Gepants were effective for abortive treatment of migraine. The most effective treatment of gepants for migraine might be olcegepant which were administrated transvenously. And all of gepants were safe for migraine treatment with single dose.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies as preventive and acute treatments for migraine-The monoclonal antibodies and gepants

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) plays a pivotal role in migraine pathophysiology. Two types of CGRP function-blocking modalities, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecules (gepants), have been developed to target the CGRP ligands and CGRP receptors. Four CGRP monoclonal antibodies have received FDA approval for the prevention of migraine: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab. Two gepants have been approved by the FDA for the acute treatment of migraine: ubrogepant and rimegepant. Multiple clinical trials of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants, and now some open-label long-term extension data, established their efficacy, safety, and tolerability. In this chapter, we summarize the major clinical trials, pharmacokinetic insights, safety and tolerability profiles, and real-world data (if available) of the CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants.

Biochemical Modulation and Pathophysiology of Migraine

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common disabling neurological disorder where attacks have been recognized to consist of more than headache. The premonitory, headache, and postdromal phases are the various phases of the migraine cycle, where aura can occur before, during, or after the onset of pain. Migraine is also associated with photosensitivity and cranial autonomic symptoms, which includes lacrimation, conjunctival injection, periorbital edema, ptosis, nasal congestion, and rhinorrhoea. This review will present the current understanding of migraine pathophysiology and the relationship to the observed symptoms.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The literature was reviewed with specific focus on clinical, neurophysiological, functional imaging, and preclinical studies in migraine including the studies on the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP).

RESULTS

The phases of the migraine cycle have been delineated by several studies. The observations of clinical symptoms help develop hypotheses of the key structures involved and the biochemical and neuronal pathways through which the effects are mediated. Preclinical studies and functional imaging studies have provided evidence for the role of multiple cortical areas, the diencephalon, especially the hypothalamus, and certain brainstem nuclei in the modulation of nociceptive processing, symptoms of the premonitory phase, aura, and photophobia. CGRP and PACAP have been found to be involved in nociceptive modulation and through exploration of CGRP mechanisms, new successful treatments have been developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine is a complex neural disorder and is important to understand when seeing patients who present to neuro-ophthalmology, especially with the successful translation from preclinical and clinical research leading to successful advances in migraine management.

Pain freedom after 2 hours should be the primary outcome in controlled trials treating migraine attacks

Background

Pain freedom after 2 hours is the recommended primary endpoint by the International Headache Society in randomized trials investigating drug treatment of acute migraine attacks. In order to demonstrate an early effect of a drug, some drug companies, however, have promoted headache relief (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or no pain) at earlier time points than 2 hours as outcome parameter.

Methods and results

We analyzed the relationship between pain freedom and headache relief in acute migraine trials and observed that persistent mild headache constituted 90% of headache relief after 0.5 hour and 40% of headache relief after 2 hours.

Conclusion

Headache relief at 2 hours should in our view only be used as an outcome measure for comparison with historic data. Prior to 2 hours, headache relief varies with time from intake and the therapeutic gain is very small. Therefore, pain freedom should be used at these early time points.

Remote Electrical Neuromodulation for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Patients with Chronic Migraine: An Open-Label Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is a novel acute treatment of migraine. Upper arm peripheral nerves are stimulated to induce conditioned pain modulation (CPM)-an endogenous analgesic mechanism in which conditioning stimulation inhibits pain in remote body regions. The REN device (Nerivio^®, Theranica Bio-Electronics LTD., Israel) is FDA-authorized for acute treatment of migraine in adults who do not have chronic migraine. The current study assessed the consistency of response over multiple migraine attacks in people with chronic migraine who are typically characterized with severe pain intensity, high disability, and less robust response to triptans.

METHODS

This was an open-label, single-arm, dual-center study conducted on adults with chronic migraine. Participants underwent a 4-week treatment phase in which they treated their migraine headaches with the device for 45 min within 1 h of attack onset. Pain levels were recorded at baseline, 2 h, and 24 h post-treatment. Efficacy outcomes (pain relief and pain-free responses at 2 h, sustained pain relief and sustained pain-free responses at 24 h) focused on intra-individual consistency of response across multiple attacks, which was defined as response in at least 50% of the treatments.

RESULTS

Forty-two participants were enrolled, and 38 participants were evaluable for analyses; 73.7% (28/38) achieved pain relief at 2 h, 26.3% (10/38) were pain-free at 2 h, 84.4% (27/32) had sustained pain relief response at 24 h and 45.0% (9/20) had sustained pain relief response at 24 h in at least 50% of their treated attacks. The effects of REN on associated symptoms and improvement in function were also consistent. The incidence of device-related adverse events was low (1.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

REN used for a series of migraine attacks was effective and well tolerated across attacks. REN may offer a safe and effective non-pharmacological alternative for acute treatment in patients with chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04161807. Retrospectively registered on November 13, 2019.

Pharmacological treatment of migraine: CGRP and 5-HT beyond the triptans

Migraine is a highly disabling neurovascular disorder characterized by a severe headache (associated with nausea, photophobia and/or phonophobia), and trigeminovascular system activation involving the release of calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP). Novel anti-migraine drugs target CGRP signaling through either stimulation of 5-HT1F receptors on trigeminovascular nerves (resulting in inhibition of CGRP release) or direct blockade of CGRP or its receptor. Lasmiditan is a highly selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist and, unlike the triptans, is devoid of vasoconstrictive properties, allowing its use in patients with cardiovascular risk. Since lasmiditan can actively penetrate the blood-brain barrier, central therapeutic as well as side effects mediated by 5-HT1F receptor activation should be further investigated. Other novel anti-migraine drugs target CGRP signaling directly. This neuropeptide can be targeted by the monoclonal antibodies eptinezumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab, or by CGRP-neutralizing L-aptamers called Spiegelmers. The CGRP receptor can be targeted by the monoclonal antibody erenumab, or by small-molecule antagonists called gepants. Currently, rimegepant and ubrogepant have been developed for acute migraine treatment, while atogepant is studied for migraine prophylaxis. Of these drugs targeting CGRP signaling directly, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, rimegepant and ubrogepant have been approved for clinical use, while atogepant is in the last stage before approval. Although all of these drugs seem highly promising for migraine treatment, their safety should be investigated in the long-term. Moreover, the exact mechanism(s) of action of these drugs need to be elucidated further, to increase both safety and efficacy and to increase the number of responders to the different treatments, so that all migraine patients can satisfactorily be treated.

Targeting CGRP for migraine treatment: mechanisms, antibodies, small molecules, perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) has gradually emerged as a suitable therapeutic target to treat migraine. Considering the social and economic burden of migraine, it is fundamental to optimize the disease management with efficacious and safe treatments. In this scenario, drugs targeting GCRP, monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) and gepants, represent new therapeutic strategies.

AREAS COVERED

In the present work, the authors aim at appraising the main insights and implications of treatments targeting CGRP by reviewing pathophysiology and clinical information.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-CGRP MoAbs are the first migraine-specific preventive treatments representing a suitable option especially for difficult-to-treat patients. They can be safely administered for long periods even in association with preventatives acting on different targets. Gepants are a safe alternative to triptans for the acute management of migraine and are currently being tested for prevention, thus representing the first transitional molecules for disease therapy. In the future, it might be possible to adapt the treatment according to patients' characteristics and disease phenotype even combining the two treatments targeting the CGRP pathway.

The current state of acute treatment for migraine in adults in the United States

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder with substantial personal, social, and economic burden that affects 37 million people in the United States. Risk factors for migraine include age, sex, and genetics. The goal of acute treatment of migraine attacks is to stop the pain and associated symptoms of the migraine attack and return the patient to normal function. The acute treatment landscape for migraine has recently expanded beyond the standard nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, analgesics, triptans, ergotamines, and combination therapies, to include neuromodulation devices, and recently approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists and a serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist. Unmet acute treatment needs still exist due to lack of efficacy, unwanted side effects, or contraindication to treatment. Effective treatment of migraine requires the clinician to assess the patient, make an accurate diagnosis, and then offer appropriate therapy based on the patient's medical history, comorbidities, and preferences, as well as published clinical evidence. The objective of this narrative review is to familiarize primary care clinicians with the variety of acute treatment options available in the United States today based on clinical trial findings, meta-analyses, evidence-based guidelines, and professional society consensus statements.

Improvement in Function after Lasmiditan Treatment: Post Hoc Analysis of Data from Phase 3 Studies

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is associated with substantial functional impairment and affects many aspects of daily life.

METHODS

Using data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies) and GLADIATOR (an open-label, phase 3 study enrolling patients who had completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN), we assessed the effects of lasmiditan on migraine-related functional disability at multiple time points from 0.5 to 48 h post dose by asking patients to rate how much the migraine was interfering with normal activities. Pooled data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (SAMURAI + SPARTAN) and data from GLADIATOR were analyzed using the intention-to-treat populations.

RESULTS

For SPARTAN + SAMURAI, significantly more patients who received lasmiditan at any dose versus placebo reported freedom from migraine-related functional disability at every timepoint from 2 h post dose, and this difference persisted to 48 h (p < 0.05). Significant differences from placebo in freedom from migraine-related functional disability commenced at 1 h post dose for lasmiditan 200 mg, 1.5 h for lasmiditan 100 mg, and 2 h for lasmiditan 50 mg. Findings from GLADIATOR supported those from SAMURAI + SPARTAN.

CONCLUSION

All doses of lasmiditan resulted in an improvement in migraine-related functional disability that persisted to 48 h. In SAMURAI + SPARTAN, a significant difference from placebo was observed as early as 1 h post dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), and GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).

Emerging Treatment Options for Migraine

Migraine is one of top 5 medical conditions that contribute to Years Lived with Disability and affects approximately 1 billion people from around the world. To date, preventive treatment and acute therapies for migraine are limited, have undesirable side effects and are poorly tolerated in patients. In the last few decades, considerable advances in our understanding of migraine and its pathophysiology have paved the way for the development of targeted treatment options. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays an integral role in the neurobiology of migraine, and new classes of drugs that target the CGRP pathway have included gepants and CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies. Serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonists—namely ditans—have also been developed to treat acute migraine. Lastly, non-invasive neuromodulation offers another treatment option for migraine patients who prefer treatments that have fewer side effects and are well tolerated. In this review, we discussed emerging treatment options for migraine that were made available in recent years. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2020;49:226–35 Key words: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody, Gepants, Headache, Lasmiditan, Neuromodulation

CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies for cluster headache

INTRODUCTION

The involvement of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway in primary headache disorders, especially migraine, had led to recent success in the development of new migraine therapies. The CGRP pathway also plays a role in the pathophysiology of cluster headache, so CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies have been studied in the prevention of cluster headache attacks.

AREAS COVERED

This review will outline the trials of fremanezumab and galcanezumab, the two CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies that have undergone trials in cluster headache prevention. This review will highlight key efficacy and safety outcomes from the trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Galcanezumab was shown to be efficacious, reducing the frequency of attacks in episodic cluster headache, while fremanezumab failed its primary endpoint in episodic cluster headache. Both fremanezumab and galcanezumab trials in chronic cluster headache were terminated after futility analysis predicting the failure of both trials to fulfil their primary endpoint. The role of CGRP in cluster headache supports ongoing trials of the remaining CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies and gepants for preventive and acute treatment. A broad view would include targeting neuropeptides involved in parasympathetic signaling in cluster headache, such as pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP); such targets warrant exploration in the search of new treatments.

Unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent and chronic disease associated with high rates of disability and significant financial and socioeconomic burden. Current acute treatments for migraine attacks include both migraine-specific (e.g., triptans, ergotamines) and nonspecific (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) medications; however, significant unmet treatment needs remain.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to characterize the nature and drivers of unmet treatment needs in the acute treatment of migraine attacks and describe emerging migraine-specific treatments, that is, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed searches were conducted using search terms for studies of unmet migraine treatment needs and CGRP receptor antagonists. Additionally, studies presented at recent headache-focused congresses were included.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of people with migraine report at least 1 unmet treatment need. Many people are unable to use migraine-specific or nonspecific agents because of contraindications, precautions, and tolerability issues. Disease burden (disability, headache severity/frequency) remains high even in those receiving migraine-specific medications. The oral CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, demonstrated efficacy in reducing migraine pain, migraine-associated symptoms, and disability, with a low adverse event profile, similar to placebo.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The availability and use of CGRP receptor antagonists may help reduce the extent of unmet needs in the treatment of migraine attacks, resulting in more patients receiving treatment and better outcomes for people with migraine. Nurse practitioners are well positioned to increase rates of migraine diagnosis/treatment (another key unmet need), using consensus guidelines to guide their approach.

Synthesis of isotopically labelled αCGRP8-37 and its lipidated analogue

α-Calcitonin gene related peptide (αCGRP) inhibitors are important medicinal targets due to their ability to produce antimigraine effects, thus, the discovery of long-acting αCGRP inhibitors is of significant interest. Herein we report the synthesis of an isotopically labelled version of the well-known CGRP receptor antagonist, αCGRP8-37 , as well as lipidated αCGRP8-37 with comparable antagonistic activity. These isotopically labelled peptides can be employed in assays to determine the metabolic stability of the lipidated αCGRP8-37 and compare this with the stability of known αCGRP8-37 .

Sex-Specific Pharmacotherapy for Migraine: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a common neurological disorder characterized by recurrent headache episodes that accompany sensory-motor disturbances, such as higher sensitivity to touch and light, extremity heaviness or weakness, and speech or language disabilities. Worldwide, migraine is one of the top 10 causes of disability and hence poses a huge economic burden to society. On average, migraine occurs in 12% of population but its occurrence is sexually dimorphic, as it is two to three times more prevalent in women than in men. This female to male ratio of migraine prevalence is age- and sex hormone-dependent. Advancements in understanding migraine pathogenesis have also revealed an association with both genetics and epigenetics. The severity of migraine, in terms of its attack duration, headache intensity, frequency, and occurrence of migraine-associated symptoms, has generally been reported to be greater in women. Sex differences in migraine disability and comorbidities, such as psychiatric disorders, have also been noted in some population-based studies. However, research on sex-related differences in response to migraine treatments is relatively scarce. Although a general observation is that women consume more medication than men for migraine treatment, strategies for the use of abortive and preventive medications for migraine are generally similar in both sexes. This narrative review summarizes available findings on sexually distinct responses to abortive and prophylactic pharmacotherapy of migraine. Basic experimental data and clinical findings will be presented, and potential mechanisms underlying sex-based responses will be discussed to highlight the importance and value of sex-based treatment in migraine research and practice.

Blocking the CGRP Pathway for Acute and Preventive Treatment of Migraine: The Evolution of Success

The pivotal role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine pathophysiology was identified over 30 years ago, but the successful clinical development of targeted therapies has only recently been realized. This Perspective traces the decades long evolution of medicinal chemistry required to advance small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, also called gepants, including the current clinical agents rimegepant, vazegepant, ubrogepant, and atogepant. Providing clinically effective blockade of CGRP signaling required surmounting multiple challenging hurdles, including defeating a sizable ligand with subnanomolar affinity for its receptor, designing antagonists with an extended confirmation and multiple pharmacophores while retaining solubility and oral bioavailability, and achieving circulating free plasma levels that provided near maximal CGRP receptor coverage. The clinical efficacy of oral and intranasal gepants and the injectable CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are described, as are recent synthetic developments that have benefited from new structural biology data. The first oral gepant was recently approved and heralds a new era in the treatment of migraine.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP): role in migraine pathophysiology and therapeutic targeting

Introduction: The neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is recognized as a critical player in migraine pathophysiology. Excitement has grown regarding CGRP because of the development and clinical testing of drugs targeting CGRP or its receptor. While these drugs alleviate migraine symptoms in half of the patients, the remaining unresponsive half of this population creates an impetus to address unanswered questions that exist in this field.Areas covered: We describe the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology and CGRP-targeted therapeutics currently under development and in use. We also discuss how a second CGRP receptor may provide a new therapeutic target.Expert opinion: CGRP-targeting drugs have shown a remarkable safety profile. We speculate that this may reflect the redundancy of peptides within the CGRP family and a second CGRP receptor that may compensate for reduced CGRP activity. Furthermore, we propose that an inherent safety feature of peptide-blocking antibodies is attributed to the fundamental nature of peptide release, which occurs as a large bolus in short bursts of volume transmission. These facts support the development of more refined CGRP therapeutic drugs, as well as drugs that target other neuropeptides. We believe that the future of migraine research is bright with exciting advances on the horizon.

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

As one of the novel therapeutic drugs that targets Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), 75 mg rimegepant has been used for the acute management of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological diseases worldwide. Several clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for the acute management of migraine, but no systematic review of existing literature has been performed. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant in treatment of patients with migraine.

Method

Pubmed, Embased, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2001 to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four RCTs with 3,827 patients were finally included in our study.

Result

We pooled 3,827 patients from four RCTs, and the primary endpoints were freedom from pain, most bothersome symptom, and pain relief at 2 hr post dose. We found that 75 mg rimegepant led to significant freedom from pain (P < 0.001), pain relief (P < 0.001), and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (P < 0.001) at 2 hr post dose compared with the placebo. In addition, there was no statistically significant increase in adverse events compared with the placebo.

Conclusions

75 mg rimegepant had good efficacy and safety for acute treatment of migraine. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy of rimegepant with traditional drugs for acute management of migraine.

Most Bothersome Symptom in Persons With Migraine: Results From the Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) Study

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to determine the rates of nausea, phonophobia, and photophobia reported overall and as the most bothersome symptom (MBS) in individuals with migraine and to identify individual characteristics associated with each of the 3 candidate MBSs.

Background

The MBS has emerged as an important coprimary efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of acute treatments for migraine, as recommended by the Food and Drug Administration. The current understanding of how persons with migraine designate an associated symptom as the most bothersome has been assessed primarily in the context of randomized trials.

Methods

Respondents (n = 95,821) in the cross‐sectional, observational Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment (MAST) study were adults (aged ≥18 years) recruited from a US nationwide online research panel. A validated diagnostic screener identified 15,133 individuals who met modified International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD)‐3 beta criteria for migraine and reported at least 1 monthly headache day (MHD) over the previous 3 months. The survey ascertained sociodemographic variables, headache‐related disability, MHDs, cutaneous allodynia, medication overuse, a migraine symptom severity score, pain interference, noncephalic pain, anxiety and depression symptoms, visual aura over the previous year, and acute treatment optimization. The current analysis is based on respondents who also completed a 6‐month follow‐up assessment that included questions about their most bothersome headache symptom.

Results

A total of 7518 respondents completed the 6‐month follow‐up, and 6045 met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The mean age of respondents was 47 (SD 13.4) years, 76.0% (4596/6045) were women, and 84.8% (5103/6017) were white. Among all respondents, 64.9% reported all 3 migraine symptoms. The MBS was photophobia in 49.1% (2967/6045), nausea in 28.1% (1697/6045), and phonophobia in 22.8% (1381/6045). Respondents reporting photophobia as the MBS were more likely to be men, to be obese, and to report visual aura. Those reporting nausea as the MBS were more likely to be women, to have lower incomes, and to report lower levels of treatment optimization. Respondents reporting phonophobia as the MBS were more likely to have cutaneous allodynia and less likely to have visual aura.

Conclusion

Most people with migraine in the MAST observational study reported all 3 cardinal symptoms of nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. As in clinical trials, the most common MBS was photophobia. Patient profiles differed among the groups defined by their MBS.

Effect of Ubrogepant vs Placebo on Pain and the Most Bothersome Associated Symptom in the Acute Treatment of Migraine: The ACHIEVE II Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist under investigation for acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant compared with placebo for acute treatment of a single migraine attack.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-attack, clinical trial (ACHIEVE II) conducted in the United States (99 primary care and research clinics; August 26, 2016-February 26, 2018). Participants were adults with migraine with or without aura experiencing 2 to 8 migraine attacks per month.

INTERVENTIONS

Ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 562), ubrogepant 25 mg (n = 561), or placebo (n = 563) for a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Co-primary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the participant-designated most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (among photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours after taking the medication.

RESULTS

Among 1686 randomized participants, 1465 received study treatment (safety population; mean age, 41.5 years; 90% female); 1355 of 1465 (92.5%) were evaluable for efficacy. Pain freedom at 2 hours was reported by 101 of 464 participants (21.8%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 90 of 435 (20.7%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 65 of 456 (14.3%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 7.5%; 95% CI, 2.6%-12.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.4%; 95% CI, 1.5%-11.5%; P = .03). Absence of the most bothersome associated symptom at 2 hours was reported by 180 of 463 participants (38.9%) in the ubrogepant 50-mg group, 148 of 434 (34.1%) in the ubrogepant 25-mg group, and 125 of 456 (27.4%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 11.5%; 95% CI, 5.4%-17.5%; P = .01; 25 mg vs placebo, 6.7%; 95% CI, 0.6%-12.7%; P = .07). The most common adverse events within 48 hours of any dose were nausea (50 mg, 10 of 488 [2.0%]; 25 mg, 12 of 478 [2.5%]; and placebo, 10 of 499 [2.0%]) and dizziness (50 mg, 7 of 488 [1.4%]; 25 mg, 10 of 478 [2.1%]; placebo, 8 of 499 [1.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults with migraine, acute treatment with ubrogepant compared with placebo led to significantly greater rates of pain freedom at 2 hours with 50-mg and 25-mg doses, and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 hours only with the 50-mg dose. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of ubrogepant against other acute treatments for migraine and to evaluate the long-term safety of ubrogepant among unselected patient populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02867709.

Dihydroergotamine (DHE) - Then and Now: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

To provide a narrative review of clinical development programs for non-oral, non-injectable formulations of dihydroergotamine (DHE) for the treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND

Dihydroergotamine was one of the first "synthetic drugs" developed in the 20th century for treating migraine. It is effective and recommended for acute migraine treatment. Since oral DHE is extensively metabolized, it must be given by a non-oral route. Intravenous DHE requires healthcare personnel to administer, subcutaneous/intramuscular injection is challenging to self-administer, and the approved nasal spray formulation exhibits low bioavailability and high variability that limits its efficacy. Currently there are several attempts underway to develop non-oral, non-injected formulations of DHE.

METHOD

A systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases, then narrative review of identified reports, focusing on those published in the last 10 years.

RESULTS

Of 1881 references to DHE from a MEDLINE/PubMed search, 164 were from the last 10 years and were the focus of this review. Further cross reference was made to ClinicalTrials.gov for 19 clinical studies, of which some results have not yet been published, or are studies that are currently underway. Three nasal DHE products are in clinical development, reawakening interest in this route of delivery for migraine. Other routes of DHE administration have been, or are being, explored.

CONCLUSION

There is renewed appreciation for DHE and the need for non-oral, non-injected delivery is now being addressed.

Targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide: a new era in migraine therapy

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling diseases worldwide, but until recently, few migraine-specific therapies had been developed. Extensive basic and clinical scientific investigation has provided strong evidence that the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a key role in migraine. This evidence led to the development of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies targeting either CGRP or its receptor. Clinical trials investigating these therapies have consistently shown statistically significant efficacy for either the acute or preventive treatment of migraine. No serious safety or tolerability issues have been identified in the trials of the monoclonal antibody therapies. Although the appropriate place of these new migraine-specific therapies relative to other available acute and preventive treatments remains to be determined, a growing body of evidence shows that therapeutic approaches targeting CGRP have the potential to transform the clinical management of migraine.

Recent Advances in Pharmacotherapy for Episodic Migraine

In 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibodies, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab, were approved in various parts of the world, including Europe and the US, and another, eptinezumab, is pending, for the prevention of migraine. In this article, episodic migraine treatment is reviewed, although these medicines are approved and are just as effective for chronic migraine. These new medicines usher a new phase in the preventive management of migraine with migraine-specific treatments. Data from phase III trials of CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies have shown they are efficacious, with adverse effect rates comparable to placebo. The combination of clear efficacy and excellent tolerability will be welcome in an area where poor adherence to current preventives is common. Rimegepant, ubrogepant and lasmiditan are migraine-specific acute therapies yet to be approved by regulators. Phase III data for the respective CGRP receptor antagonists, the gepants, and the serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonist, the ditan, have been positive and free of cardiovascular adverse effects. These medicines are not vasoconstrictors. When approved, they could meet the acute therapy demand of patients with cardiovascular risk factors where triptans are contraindicated. Beyond this, gepants will see the most disruptive development in migraine management in generations with medicines that can have both acute and preventive effects, the latter evidenced by data from the discontinued drug telcagepant and the early-phase drug atogepant. Moreover, one can expect no risk of medication overuse syndromes with gepants since the more patients take, the less migraines they have. During the next years, as experience with monoclonal antibodies grows in clinical practice, we can expect an evolution in migraine management to take shape. Clinicians will be able to offer treatment patients want rather than trying to fit migraineurs into therapeutic boxes for their management. Despite pessimistic susurrations of a largely addlepated form, many patients, and physicians, will welcome new options, and the challenges of new treatment paradigms, with optimism.

Efficacy, Tolerability, and Safety of DFN-15 (Celecoxib Oral Solution, 25 mg/mL) in the Acute Treatment of Episodic Migraine: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 120 mg DFN‐15 vs placebo for the acute treatment of migraine.

Background

Certain nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are guideline‐recommended therapies for the acute treatment of migraine, but patients who use them may have issues with gastrointestinal tolerability. Celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase‐2, produces analgesia similar to nonselective NSAIDs. DFN‐15 is an oral, ready‐made liquid solution of celecoxib being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine.

Methods

A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, efficacy, tolerability, and safety study in adults with migraine was conducted. Subjects treated a single migraine attack with 120 mg DFN‐15 or placebo as soon as possible after the onset of pain of moderate to severe intensity. The 2 independent coprimary efficacy endpoints were the proportion of subjects with freedom from pain and the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours postdose. A second double‐blind treatment period followed the first, but did not contribute to the primary outcomes and will be reported elsewhere.

Results

There were 622 subjects randomized (1:1) to double‐blind treatment with either 120 mg DFN‐15 or placebo, and 567 (91.2%) treated a migraine with study drug (n = 285 DFN‐15; n = 282 placebo). Groups were balanced in demographic characteristics; the mean age was 40, and most subjects were female (87% [494/567]). At 2 hours postdose, DFN‐15 was significantly superior to placebo for pain freedom (35.6% [98/275] vs 21.7% [57/263], P < .001), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.00 (1.36, 2.94) and for freedom from the MBS (57.8% [134/232] vs 44.8% [104/232], P = .007), with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 1.68 (1.17, 2.43). A total of 13.3% (38/285) of DFN‐15‐treated subjects and 8.9% (25/282) of placebo‐treated subjects reported a treatment‐emergent adverse event (TEAE). Study drug‐related TEAEs were reported by 9.1% (26/285) of DFN‐15 subjects and 6.0% (17/282) of placebo subjects, the most common of which were dysgeusia (4.2% [12/285] vs 1.4% [4/282]) and nausea (3.2% [9/285] vs 1.8% [5/282]). No subjects treated with DFN‐15 reported TEAEs that were severe or led to withdrawal, and no serious TEAEs or deaths were reported in the study.

Conclusions

DFN‐15 was significantly more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine, with a generally favorable tolerability and safety profile.