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

Long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine attacks

BACKGROUND

Long-term data helps assess the consistency of efficacy, tolerability, and safety of acute treatment over repeated use for different attacks. Real-world studies help assess tolerability, safety, and efficacy in patients with possibly refractory chronic migraine, more comorbidities, other diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, and polypharmacy.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Both manuscripts and abstracts were reviewed.

RESULTS

The efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant are maintained over time. No significant cardiovascular adverse events were thought to be related to any of these medications. The rare instances of palpitations and/or tachycardia occurred within 48 hours of lasmiditan. One participant with a history of supraventricular tachycardia had sinus tachycardia thought to be related to ubrogepant which did not recur despite continued use. One case of thrombocytopenia and two cases of increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase were thought to be possibly related, but the alanine transaminase and aspartate aminotransferase levels normalized despite continued use of ubrogepant. A case of first-degree atrioventricular block was considered possibly related to rimegepant. Acute use of rimegepant was associated with a decrease in monthly migraine days over time. The three medications were associated with improvement in function and/or productivity.

CONCLUSION

Long-term and real-world data of tolerability, safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant is thus far consistent with prior studies, but more longitudinal data that clarifies long-term safety as well as consistency and predictors of response is needed.

New Oral Drugs for Migraine

Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disorder, with several manifestations, of which pain is just one. Despite its worldwide prevalence, there remains a paucity of targeted and effective treatments for the condition, leaving many of those affected underserved by available treatments. Work over the last 30+ years has recently led to the emergence of the first targeted acute and preventive treatments in our practice since the triptan era in the early 1990s, which are changing the landscape of migraine treatment. These include the monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Evolving work on novel therapeutic targets, as well as continuing to exploit drugs used in other disorders that may also have a therapeutic effect in migraine, is likely to lead to more and more treatments being able to be offered to migraineurs. Future work involves the development of agents that lack vasoconstrictive effects, such as lasmiditan, do not contribute to medication overuse, such as the gepants, and do not interact with other drugs that may be used for the disorder, as well as agents that can act both acutely and preventively, thereby utilising the quantum between acute and preventive drug effects which has been demonstrated with different migraine drugs before. Here we discuss the evolution of oral migraine treatments over the last 5 years, including those that have gained regulatory approval and reached clinical practice, those in development and potential other targets for the future.

The Association Between the Occurrence of Common Treatment-Emergent Adverse Events and Efficacy Outcomes After Lasmiditan Treatment of a Single Migraine Attack: Secondary Analyses from Four Pooled Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

In controlled clinical trials, compared with placebo, a significantly greater proportion of participants using lasmiditan to treat a migraine attack achieved 2-h pain freedom (PF) and experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE).

OBJECTIVE

To better inform clinicians about treatment expectations by evaluating the association between TEAEs and efficacy outcomes after lasmiditan treatment.

METHODS

Pooled data from SAMURAI, SPARTAN, MONONOFU, and CENTURION were analyzed. A common TEAE (CTEAE) was defined as occurring in ≥ 2% in the overall population. Central nervous system (CNS)-CTEAEs were based on Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities.

RESULTS

At 2 h, a significantly higher percentage of lasmiditan 200 mg-treated participants who achieved PF experienced ≥ 1 CTEAE than non-responders who continued to experience moderate/severe pain (48.2% vs. 28.7%, respectively). Correspondingly, a significantly higher percentage of lasmiditan 200 mg-treated participants who experienced ≥ 1 CTEAE achieved PF at 2 h than those who did not (39.0% vs. 30.2%, respectively). Similar results were generally observed with individual CNS-CTEAEs, but for non-CNS-CTEAEs, this pattern was less evident or in the opposite direction. No consistent differences were observed for migraine-related functional disability freedom. The percentage of participants with improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) was greater with a CNS-CTEAE versus no CNS-CTEAE.

CONCLUSIONS

Those who had PF at 2 h were more likely to experience a CNS-CTEAE, and those with CNS-CTEAEs were more likely to experience PF. The occurrence of CTEAEs did not seem to negatively affect disability freedom or PGIC.

GOV REGISTRATION

SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), MONONOFU (NCT03962738), CENTURION (NCT03670810), ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02439320, NCT02605174, NCT03962738, NCT03670810.

A close association of freedom from pain, migraine-related functional disability, and other outcomes: results of a post hoc analysis of randomized lasmiditan studies SAMURAI and SPARTAN

BACKGROUND

While pain freedom at 2 h is a key primary outcome for current trials for acute treatment of migraine, the relationship between the degree of head pain and other efficacy measures at 2 h has rarely been explored. Following lasmiditan treatment of a migraine attack with moderate or severe head pain, we contrast those who achieve pain freedom with those who achieve mild pain but not pain freedom 2 h post dosing.

METHODS

Patient-level data were pooled across studies and treatment arms from two Phase 3 trials comparing lasmiditan and placebo, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. This post hoc analysis assessed freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS), freedom from migraine-related functional disability (disability), and improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) in patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom compared to those who experienced 2 h mild pain. Mild pain differs from pain relief which is defined as either mild pain or pain freedom.

RESULTS

Patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom (N = 913), in comparison with those with 2 h mild pain (N = 864), were significantly more likely to experience MBS freedom (91.9% vs. 44.9%), disability freedom (87.1% and 13.4%), and improved PGIC (86.5% and 31.5%) (p < 0.001 for all combinations). In addition, more patients who were pain free experienced both 2 h MBS freedom and 2 h functional disability freedom (83.6%) compared to those with mild pain (10.8%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with pain freedom who did not achieve either MBS or disability freedom (4.6%) was lower than in patients with mild pain (52.4%). Lastly, 55.2% of patients experienced mild pain before disability freedom compared to 72.1% who experienced pain freedom and disability freedom at the same time.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that, at 2 h post treatment, patients who were pain free were more likely to achieve other outcomes including freedom from their MBS, freedom from migraine-related functional disability, and improved PGIC compared to those with mild pain, confirming that 2 h pain freedom is more robustly associated with other clinical outcomes than the 2 h mild pain endpoint.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ); SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ).

Lasmiditan: an additional therapeutic option for the acute treatment of migraine

Introduction: Migraine is currently listed as the second cause of 'years lived with disability' and the sixth cause of global disability. Despite the burden associated to the disease, availability of specific drugs is still limited.Areas covered: The authors have evaluated lasmiditan, the first 'ditan' approved by the Food and Drugs Administration in 2019, from a global perspective: basic chemistry, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles, efficacy in migraine as a 5-HT_1F receptor selective agonist, tolerability and clinical safety, and impact on migraine-related disability. Our evaluation considered original papers and review articles published from 2010 to 2020.Expert opinion: Available data point to the efficacy of lasmiditan in reducing migraine pain and the most bothersome symptoms within 2 hours from oral administration. Moreover, lasmiditan has a positive effect on migraine-related disability. Its side effects mostly reflect an involvement of the central nervous system or the vestibular system, while cardiovascular side effects are rare and mild.Lasmiditan can be safely prescribed in patients who have failed non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or triptans or with cardiovascular risk factors. Caution is advised in frequent users, due to lack of reliable data on its abuse potential. Further data are necessary to determine the usability of lasmiditan in particular populations, e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy.

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine

Migraine is a leading cause of morbidity and disability worldwide. Triptans were the first migraine-specific drug class developed and have proven efficacy in treatment of this neurological disease. They are however contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular disease and possibly others, owning to their vasoconstrictive properties. This review will focus on lasmiditan, which has been called the first 'ditan' and 'neurally acting anti-migraine agent', designed to selectively agonize the serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor subtype, providing anti-migraine effects without concomitant vasoconstriction. To date, lasmiditan has proven safe and effective for the acute treatment of migraine in two Phase II and four Phase III trials. Post hoc analysis revealed that the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were CNS-related, mild-to-moderate in severity and self-limiting. The US FDA label recommends that patients not drive or operate machinery until at least 8 h after taking each dose of lasmiditan.

Effect of a change in lasmiditan dose on efficacy and safety in patients with migraine

Background: Lasmiditan is a selective serotonin (1F) receptor agonist approved for acute treatment of migraine with 3 doses: 50, 100, and 200 mg.Objective: To help provide dosing insights, we assessed the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients who treated two migraine attacks with the same or different lasmiditan doses.Methods: Integrated analyses used data from the migraine attack treated in either of two controlled, Phase 3, single attack studies (SAMURAI/SPARTAN), and after the first attack treated in the open-label GLADIATOR extension study. Eight patient groups were created based on the initial dose received in SAMURAI or SPARTAN and the subsequent dose in GLADIATOR: placebo-100, placebo-200, 50-100, 50-200, 100-100, 100-200, 200-100, 200-200. Migraine pain freedom, migraine-related functional disability freedom, most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, and pain relief were evaluated at 2-h post-dose. The occurrence of most common treatment-emergent adverse events (MC-TEAE) was evaluated. Shift analyses were performed for pain freedom and ≥1 MC-TEAE. The incidence of patients with a specific outcome from the first and subsequent doses were compared within each dose change group using McNemar's test.Results: Small, but consistent, increases in incidences of pain freedom, migraine-related functional disability freedom, MBS freedom, and pain relief occurred when the second lasmiditan dose was higher than the initial dose. For patients starting on 50 mg, increasing to 100 or 200 mg provided a positive efficacy-TEAE balance, despite an increase in incidence of ≥1 MC-TEAE. For patients starting on 100 mg, increasing to 200 mg provided a positive efficacy-TEAE balance. If the initial dose was 100 or 200 mg, the incidence of patients experiencing ≥1 MC-TEAE decreased or stayed the same with their subsequent dose, regardless of dose. Decreasing from 200 to 100 mg led to a decrease in patients with pain freedom and ≥1 MC-TEAE, resulting in a neutral efficacy-TEAE balance. Shift analyses supported these findings.Conclusion: A positive efficacy-TEAE balance exists for patients increasing their lasmiditan dose for treatment of a subsequent migraine attack. These results could be important for optimizing dosing for individual patients.Clinicaltrials.gov: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174); GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).

Rational Use of Lasmiditan for Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

This narrative review provides an update on the research that led to the development of ditans and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in adults and discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of lasmiditan in clinical use.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception through January 9, 2021, to identify relevant studies. Search results were assessed for their overall relevance to this review.

FINDINGS

Because part of the effect of the triptans is mediated by the serotonin 1F receptors, which are not present in the smooth muscle, a pure agonist of these receptors, lasmiditan, was developed. Lasmiditan is hypothesized to act on antinociceptive pathways and inhibit the calcitonin gene-related peptide release. Lasmiditan was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on the results of 2 pivotal trials that found a significant difference from placebo in the percentage of patients who achieved freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom at 2 h. The main concern of lasmiditan derives from its central nervous system-related adverse effects, mainly dizziness and paraesthesia, probably attributable to its high blood brain barrier penetration. These central nervous system adverse effects impair driving performance for hours and might be suboptimal for individuals with migraine who want to quickly stop the migraine attack to resume their activities as soon as possible.

IMPLICATIONS

Despite the advantage of being beneficial in the acute treatment of migraine without vasocostrictive action, lasmiditan also presents limitations, in particular the central nervous system adverse effects. Moreover, head-to-head trials against triptans and gepants are indispensable to determine the better option for patients.