Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Rimegepant and atogepant: novel drugs providing innovative opportunities in the management of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Rimegepant and atogepant, two innovative oral medications for the treatment of migraine, are gaining prominence in the treatment of migraine. However, outside of specialist headache centers, these novel medications remain subjectively underutilized. While multiple rationales exist describing their underutilization, a leading factor is the complexity and clinical flexibility attributed to the individual members of the gepant medication class.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a brief review of the current uses, common adverse events, and potential areas of future clinical innovation attributed to rimegepant and atogepant. A database search for the term 'Rimegepant OR Atogepant' was completed, yielding 240 individual results. Following multiple rounds of assessment that aimed to determine relevance of each individual result, 42 studies were included in the synthesis of this review.

EXPERT OPINION

Rimegepant and atogepant are exciting medications that demonstrate significant clinical innovation within the field of migraine therapy. While current indications are clear, data is lacking regarding the future expanded roles of these medications. Current areas of potential therapeutic innovation for rimegepant and atogepant include the pediatric population, in pregnancy and breastfeeding, in cluster headache and post-traumatic headache, and in patients that previously discontinued calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy.

Hallmarks of primary headache: part 1 - migraine

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Migraine is a common disabling conditions which, globally, affects 15.2% of the population. It is the second cause of health loss in terms of years lived with disability, the first among women. Despite being so common, it is poorly recognised and too often undertreated. Specialty centres and neurologists with specific expertise on headache disorders have the knowledge to provide specific care: however, those who do not regularly treat patients with migraine will benefit from a synopsis on the most relevant and updated information about this condition. This paper presents a comprehensive view on the hallmarks of migraine, from genetics and diagnostic markers, up to treatments and societal impact, and reports the elements that identify migraine specific features.

MAIN RESULTS

The most relevant hallmark of migraine is that it has common and individual features together. Besides the known clinical manifestations, migraine presentation is heterogeneous with regard to frequency of attacks, presence of aura, response to therapy, associated comorbidities or other symptoms, which likely reflect migraine heterogeneous genetic and molecular basis. The amount of therapies for acute and for prophylactic treatment is really wide, and one of the difficulties is with finding the best treatment for the single patient. In addition to this, patients carry out different daily life activities, and might show lifestyle habits which are not entirely adequate to manage migraine day by day. Education will be more and more important as a strategy of brain health promotion, because this will enable reducing the amount of subjects needing specialty care, thus leaving it to those who require it in reason of refractory condition or presence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing the hallmarks of migraine and the features of single patients enables prescribing specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Medical research on headaches today particularly suffers from the syndrome of single-disease approach, but it is important to have a cross-sectional and joint vision with other close specialties, in order to treat our patients with a comprehensive approach that a heterogeneous condition like migraine requires.

Understanding the efficacy and tolerability of migraine treatment: a deep dive into CGRP antagonists

INTRODUCTION

The discovery of the role of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGPR) in migraine pathogenesis ushered in a new era in headache medicine. This evidence led to the development of small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies targeting either CGRP or its receptor.

AREAS COVERED

We will present selected aspects of the role of CGRP in the pathogenesis of migraine, the efficacy of CGRP-targeted treatment, and the still-open questions regarding the practical application of CGRP antagonists in headache medicine.

EXPERT OPINION

CGRP-targeting drugs represent a transformative approach to migraine treatment, offering superior efficacy and tolerability compared to traditional therapies, they are a helpful addition to the treatment arsenal but also have their flaws and require further observation. Their availability provides new hope for migraine patients, particularly those who have not responded adequately to conventional treatments. Future directions for migraine care planning, especially for chronic migraine and medication-overuse headache, should include universal access to these specific and effective forms of therapy to prevent complications from the disease and its negative effects in many aspects of a patient's life.

Atogepant for migraine prevention: a meta-analysis of safety and efficacy in adults

Background

Migraine is a neurological condition marked by frequent headaches, which tends to be accompanied by nausea and vomiting in severe instances. Injectable therapies for migraine, such as monoclonal antibodies that target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), have proven to be effective and safe. While various oral drugs are available, none have been developed for migraines. Patients prefer oral therapies because they are easier to use, making atogepant, an orally accessible small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, a possible alternative.

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of atogepant with placebo in treating migraine.

Methods

Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, we meticulously gathered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Science Direct, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies comparing atogepant with placebo and reporting monthly migraine days (MMDs) as the primary outcome along with secondary outcomes such as monthly headache days and acute medication use days were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction and quality assessment. Statistical analyses were carried out using RevMan, utilizing risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and a random-effects model.

Results

Our primary outcome was the change in MMDs over 12 weeks, which showed a significant reduction with atogepant at dosages of 10, 30, and 60 mg. Secondary outcomes, such as monthly headache days, proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs, acute medication use days, and patient-reported outcomes, consistently showed that atogepant outperformed placebo, highlighting its effectiveness in reducing the migraine burden.

Conclusion

Higher doses of atogepant are more effective in lowering migraine and headache-related days and increasing quality of life metrics. However, this is accompanied by an increased incidence of adverse events, suggesting the need for careful dose optimization to balance the benefits and risks.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=563395. Unique Identifier: CRD42024563395.

Adverse events associated with Atogepant: a FAERS-based pharmacovigilance analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine, a prevalent neurovascular disorder, can significantly disrupt an individual's daily life. Atogepant (AGN-241689), an orally administered small-molecule drug classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is utilized for prophylactic migraine treatment. The objective of this study was to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with atogepant through data mining in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to enhance clinical safety.

METHODS

Data for atogepant were obtained from the FAERS database covering Q3 2021 through Q4 2023. Disproportionality analysis was employed to quantify relevant AEs associated with atogepant. Reported Ratio of Ratios (ROR) was utilized for identifying risk signals within the FAERS data. This methodology relies on the System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Terminology (PT) of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

RESULTS

From the FAERS database, a collection of 7,991,243 reports was obtained. Among these reports, a subset of 3015 was identified as 'primary suspected (PS)' AEs specifically related to atogepant. AEs induced by atogepant were observed across 27 organ systems. A total of 48 significantly disproportionate Preferred Terminologies (PTs) meeting all four algorithms were identified.

CONCLUSION

Our study has identified adverse events (AEs) associated with atogepant, potentially providing crucial support for the clinical monitoring and risk identification of atogepant.

Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment.

METHODS

An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses).

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Endometriosis: recent advances that could accelerate diagnosis and improve care

Endometriosis is a common disorder associated with pain, gastrointestinal and urinary symptoms, infertility, and fatigue. It is defined by the presence of endometrial-like lesions found predominantly in the pelvis. Mechanisms that contribute to disease aetiology include changes in hormonal, inflammatory, and pain pathways. In this article, we focus on recent developments in imaging technologies, on our improved understanding of mechanisms contributing to infertility, on drug therapies that are in clinical trials, and on insights from studies on the gut that offer potential to support self-management strategies. We postulate that improvements in the quality of life of patients will be accelerated by reframing endometriosis as a multi-system disorder and learning from treatments targeting symptoms shared between endometriosis, neuroinflammatory, and gastrointestinal disorders.

Causality between migraine and cardiovascular disease: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study

BACKGROUND

While growing evidence suggests a relationship between migraine and cardiovascular disease, the genetic evidence for a causal relationship between migraine and cardiovascular disease is still scarce. Investigating the causal association between migraine and cardiovascular disease is vital.

METHODS

We carried out a bidirectional Mendelian randomization (MR) study including discovery samples and replication samples using publicly available genome-wide association study (GWAS) summary datasets and stringent screening instrumental variables. Four different MR techniques-Inverse variance weighted (IVW), MR ‒Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode-as well as various sensitivity analyses-Cochran's Q, IVW radial, leave-one-out (LOO), and MR-PRESSO-were utilized to investigate the causal relationship between cardiovascular disease and migraine.

RESULTS

The protective causal effects of genetically predicted migraine on coronary artery disease (OR, 0.881; 95% CI 0.790-0.982; p = 0.023) and ischemic stroke (OR, 0.912; 95% CI 0.854-0.974; p = 0.006) were detected in forward MR analysis but not in any other cardiovascular disease. Consistently, we also discovered protective causal effects of coronary atherosclerosis (OR, 0.865; 95% CI 0.797-0.940; p = 0.001) and myocardial infarction (OR, 0.798; 95% CI 0.668-0.952; p = 0.012) on migraine in reverse MR analysis.

CONCLUSION

We found a potential protective effect of migraine on coronary artery disease and ischemic stroke and a potential protective effect of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction on migraine. We emphasised epidemiological and genetic differences and the need for long-term safety monitoring of migraine medications and future research to improve cardiovascular outcomes in migraine patients.

Evidence-based review and frontiers of migraine therapy

BACKGROUND

Cyclic vomiting syndrome (CVS) is identified as one of the "episodic syndromes that may be associated with migraine," along with benign paroxysmal torticollis, benign paroxysmal vertigo, and abdominal migraine. It has been proposed that CVS and migraine may share pathophysiologic mechanisms of hypothalamic activation and altered dopaminergic signaling, and impaired sensorimotor intrinsic connectivity. The past decade has brought groundbreaking advances in the treatment of migraine and other headache disorders. While many of these therapies have yet to be studied in episodic syndromes associated with migraine including CVS and abdominal migraine, the potential shared pathophysiology among these conditions suggests that use of migraine-specific treatments may have a beneficial role even in those for whom headache is not the primary symptom.

PURPOSE

This manuscript highlights newer therapies in migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its relation to migraine pathophysiology and the therapies that target the CGRP pathway, as well as a 5HT1F receptor agonist and neuromodulation devices used to treat migraine are briefly discussed as they may potentially prove to be useful in the future treatment of CVS.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Inhibitors in the Treatment of Migraine in the Pediatric and Adolescent Populations: A Review

There are limited well-studied treatments for migraine in the pediatric population. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors are an established safe and effective treatment in adults, and use may be appropriate for pediatric patients in certain clinical situations. We describe migraine pathophysiology as it relates to CGRP, provide an overview of available medications, and discuss clinical usage in this population.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Atogepant Co-administered with Quinidine Gluconate in Healthy Participants: A Phase 1, Open-Label, Drug-Drug Interaction Study

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. Atogepant is a substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein, organic anion transporting polypeptide transporters, and cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and 2D6. Quinidine is a strong P-gp and CYP2D6 inhibitor. A phase 1 open-label study evaluated the effect of P-gp and CYP2D6 inhibition by quinidine on the pharmacokinetics of atogepant, and the safety and tolerability of atogepant and quinidine gluconate (QG) when co-administered and when given alone in 33 healthy adults. There was no significant change in the atogepant maximum plasma concentration with QG co-administration. The overall systemic exposure, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (from time 0 to time t or to infinity), of atogepant increased by 25% when co-administered with QG. However, such an increase was not considered clinically relevant. Atogepant did not alter the mean plasma concentration of quinidine at steady state. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest when QG was administered alone (42.4%), which was primarily due to QT prolongation. Most TEAEs reported were mild in severity and resolved within 1-2 days. Co-administration of atogepant with QG did not result in any unexpected tolerability findings in this phase 1 study in healthy participants. The increase in atogepant exposure during QG co-administration could be due to inhibition of CYP2D6 (a minor contributor to atogepant clearance) as well as inhibition of P-gp.

Real-world study of adverse events associated with gepant use in migraine treatment based on the VigiAccess and U.S. Food and Drug Administration's adverse event reporting system databases

Background

This study aimed to investigate the real-world profile of adverse events (AEs) associated with gepant medications in the clinical treatment of migraines by analyzing data collected from the VigiAccess database and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. As novel migraine therapies, gepants act by targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, demonstrating effective control of migraine attacks and good tolerability. Nonetheless, comprehensive real-world studies on the safety of gepants are still lacking, particularly regarding their safety in large populations, long-term use, and potential adverse reactions in specific groups, which necessitates further empirical research. Leveraging these two international adverse event reporting system databases, we systematically gathered and analyzed reports of AEs related to gepant medications, such as rimegepant. Our focus encompasses but is not limited to severe, new, and rare adverse reactions induced by the drugs, as well as safety issues pertaining to the gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hepatic, and renal systems. Through descriptive statistical analyses, we assessed the incidence and characteristics of AEs, compared AEs among gepants, and uncovered previously unknown AE information, all with the goal of providing a reference for the selection of clinical treatment regimens and AE monitoring.

Methods

By extracting all AE reports concerning "rimegepant", "atogepant", and "ubrogepant" from the VigiAccess and FAERS database since its establishment up to 31 March 2024, a retrospective quantitative analysis was conducted. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) method were used to compare AEs among the three gepants.

Results

In the VigiAccess and FAERS databases, 23542 AE reports in total, respectively, were identified as being related to gepant medications. Among gastrointestinal system AEs, rimegepant had the greatest proportion and greatest signal strength; nausea was most severe and had the strongest signal in rimegepant AEs, whereas constipation was most prominent and had the strongest signal in atogepant AEs. In skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, rash and pruritus were more frequently observed with rimegepant, followed by ubrogepant. Alopecia emerged as a novel AE, being more severe in rimegepant and secondarily in atogepant. Regarding cardiac disorders, the three gepants showed comparable rates of cardiac AEs, yet rimegepant exhibited the strongest AE signal. In musculoskeletal and connective tissue AEs, ubrogepant presented the most positive signals for skeletal muscle AEs. Furthermore, among the rare blood and lymphatic system disorder AEs, rimegepant had the highest number of reports of Raynaud's phenomenon and the strongest signal. The study also revealed that while reports of AEs involving liver diseases were scarce across the three gepants, severe AEs were detected in clinical trials, highlighting the need for continued, enhanced monitoring of liver system AEs through large-scale datasets.

Conclusion

Gepant medications exhibit similarities and differences in their safety profiles. Analysis of the two databases indicated the presence of AEs across various systems, including gastrointestinal disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, organ-specific effects, and liver diseases. However, each drug displays distinct incidences and signal intensities for these AEs. Additionally, the study revealed a rare AE in the form of Raynaud's phenomenon. These findings suggest that during clinical use, individualized medication selection and AE monitoring should be based on the patient's physiological condition and specific characteristics.

Therapeutic strategies focusing on immune dysregulation and neuroinflammation in rosacea

Rosacea is a complex inflammatory condition characterized by papulopustular lesions and erythema on the central face for which there is no cure. The development of rosacea is influenced by both external triggers and genetics, but the common pathophysiology is overactivation of the immune system. Here, we review the current data on proinflammatory cytokines and dysregulation of the neurovascular system as targetable components of rosacea. Amelioration of cutaneous and gastrointestinal dysbiosis and other external factors impacts the immune state and has been observed to improve rosacea. While multiple treatments exist, many patients do not achieve their goals for rosacea control and highlights an unmet need for dermatologic care. Current interventions encompass topical/oral drugs, light devices, and avoidance of triggers management. Additional understanding of the underlying pathogenesis may help us develop novel targeted therapeutic strategies to improve rosacea.

Efficacy of Atogepant in Chronic Migraine With and Without Acute Medication Overuse in the Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 PROGRESS Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Atogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM) in participants with and without acute medication overuse.

METHODS

This subgroup analysis of the phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled PROGRESS trial evaluated adults with a ≥1-year history of CM, ≥15 monthly headache days (MHDs), and ≥8 monthly migraine days (MMDs) during the 4-week baseline period. Participants were randomized (1:1:1) to placebo, atogepant 30 mg twice daily (BID), or atogepant 60 mg once daily (QD) for 12 weeks and were analyzed by acute medication overuse status (triptans/ergots for ≥10 days per month, simple analgesics for ≥15 days per month, or combinations of triptans/ergots/simple analgesics for ≥10 days per month). Outcomes included change from baseline in mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days; ≥50% reduction in mean MMDs across 12 weeks; and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures.

RESULTS

Of 755 participants in the modified intent-to-treat population, 500 (66.2%) met baseline acute medication overuse criteria (placebo, n = 169 [68.7%]; atogepant 30 mg BID, n = 161 [63.6%]; atogepant 60 mg QD, n = 170 [66.4%]). The least squares mean difference (LSMD) (95% CI) from placebo in MMDs was -2.7 (-4.0 to -1.4) with atogepant 30 mg BID and -1.9 (-3.2 to -0.6) with atogepant 60 mg QD. Mean MHDs (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.0 to -1.5] and -2.1 [-3.3 to -0.8]) and mean acute medication use days (LSMD [95% CI] -2.8 [-4.1 to -1.6] and -2.6 [-3.9 to -1.3]) were reduced and a higher proportion of participants achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs (odds ratio [95% CI] 2.5 [1.5-4.0] and 2.3 [1.4-3.7]) with atogepant 30 mg BID and atogepant 60 mg QD. There was a 52.1%-61.9% reduction in the proportion of atogepant-treated participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria over 12 weeks. Atogepant improved PRO measures. Similar results were observed in the subgroup without acute medication overuse.

DISCUSSION

Atogepant was effective in participants with CM, with and without acute medication overuse, as evidenced by reductions in mean MMDs, MHDs, and acute medication use days; reductions in the proportion of participants meeting acute medication overuse criteria; and improvements in PROs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03855137. Submitted: February 25, 2019; first patient enrolled: March 11, 2019. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03855137.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

This study provides Class II evidence that atogepant reduces mean MMDs, MHDs, and monthly acute medication use days in adult patients with or without medication overuse.

Efficacy and safety of atogepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, for the preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is one of the most common diseases worldwide while current treatment options are not ideal. New therapeutic classes of migraine, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, have been developed and shown considerable effectiveness and safety. The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of atogepant, a CGRP antagonist, for migraine prophylaxis from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed and https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ were searched for RCTs that compared atogepant with placebo for migraine prophylaxis from inception of the databases to Feb 1, 2024. Outcome data involving efficacy and safety were combined and analyzed using Review Manager Software version 5.3 (RevMan 5.3). For each outcome, risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated.

RESULTS

4 RCTs with a total of 2813 subjects met our inclusion criteria. The overall effect estimate showed that atogepant was significantly superior to placebo in terms of the reduction of monthly migraine (SMD - 0.40, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.34) or headache (SMD - 0.39, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.33) days, the reduction of acute medication use days (SMD - 0.45, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.39) and 50% responder rate (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.89), while no dose-related improvements were found between different dosage groups. For the safety, significant number of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with atogepant than with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.21) while there was no obvious difference between the five dosage groups. Most TEAEs involved constipation (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.91-3.41), nausea (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.67-2.87) and urinary tract infection (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.11). In addition, a high dosage of atogepant may also increase the risk of treatment-related TEAEs (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and fatigue (RR 3.07, 95% CI 1.13-8.35).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that atogepant is effective and tolerable for migraine prophylaxis including episodic or chronic migraine compared with placebo. It is critical to weigh the benefits of different doses against the risk of adverse events in clinical application of atogepant. Longer and multi-dose trials with larger sample sizes are required to verify the current findings.

Effect of a High-Fat Meal on the Pharmacokinetics of an Immediate Release Atogepant Tablet

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. A phase 1, open-label, single-dose, 2-period crossover study evaluated the effect of a high-fat meal on the pharmacokinetics and safety of atogepant in 20 healthy adults. Administration of atogepant 60 mg immediate-release (IR) tablets under fed conditions reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from 0 to time t and from 0 to time infinity by approximately 18% and reduced the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) by 22%. The 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC were not contained within the bioequivalence limits of 80%-125%. There was no change in the median time to maximum plasma concentration in the fed versus fasted state. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was similar between fed and fasted conditions. Four TEAEs were considered related to study intervention and were reported after participants received atogepant under fasted conditions (3 participants). A single-dose atogepant 60 mg IR tablet was safe and tolerated under both fed and fasted states. Due to the wide effective dose range of 10-60 mg/day for atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, the food effect on its pharmacokinetics is not considered clinically relevant.

[Anti-CGRP-based Migraine Medications: A Comprehensive Overview]

In the early 1990s, the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) was identified as a key messenger in the pathophysiology of migraine and emerged as a treatment target, fundamentally transforming our approach to migraine therapy. While previous prophylactic drugs were non-specific and often caused intolerable side effects, the discovery of CGRP marked the advent of a new era in migraine treatment. The two main classes of CGRP-specific migraine treatments are monoclonal antibodies that bind to CGRP or the CGRP receptor, and CGRP receptor antagonists, the so-called gepants. Extensive clinical trials have conclusively demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of monoclonal CGRP(-receptor) antibodies in the prophylactic treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The same positive results apply to the use of various gepants. They have proven to be not only an effective alternative to triptans in acute migraine therapy but also promising options for continuous use as prophylactic treatments. In this review, we aim to present the current state of research on CGRP-specific migraine therapy and insights in real-world data from the first years after their launch in clinical practice.

The preclinical discovery and development of atogepant for migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Atogepant is a selective calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist that is utilized in adults for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. Cumulative findings support the involvement of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology, and atogepant functions by competitively antagonizing CGRP receptors, which results in the inhibition of trigeminovascular nociception. The mechanism of action addresses the cause of migraine pain, providing an effective preventive treatment option.

AREAS COVERED

The key milestones in its development, including preclinical achievements, phase I, II, and III clinical trials, and regulatory approvals are reviewed. Additionally, clinical efficacy, safety profile, and tolerability of atogepant are discussed. The literature review is based on a comprehensive search of English peer-reviewed articles from various electronic databases, including PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov.

EXPERT OPINION

The development of atogepant represents a significant breakthrough in migraine prevention, particularly due to its improved safety profile that reduces the risk of liver injury, which was a major limitation of first-generation gepants. Drug-drug interaction studies with atogepant highlight the necessity for more inclusive study populations. Given that migraine disproportionately affects females, future clinical development programs should include diverse patient demographics to ensure the findings are generalizable to all individuals suffering from migraine.

Developments in targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapy has revolutionized migraine treatment since its first approval in 2018. CGRP-targeted therapy includes monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants, which modulate trigeminal nociceptive and inflammatory responses, alleviating pain sensitization involved in migraine pathogenesis. CGRP-targeted therapy is effective not only for migraine but also for other chronic headache disorders that share the CGRP pathway.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the latest developments and evidence for CGRP-targeted therapy for episodic migraine and chronic migraine. In addition, the authors discuss the emerging evidence on response prediction, menstrual migraine, vestibular migraine, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-traumatic headache, and the relationship between selected migraine comorbidities and CGRP.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the launch of CGRP-targeted therapy, many practical issues have been raised. Generally, it's safe to combine CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants; this is an excellent option for patients with partial response. When considering stopping CGRP-targeted therapy, although a disease-modifying effect is likely, the optimal time for discontinuation remains unknown. Finally, beyond migraine, CGRP-targeted therapy may be used for other chronic pain disorders and psychological comorbidities.

Switching CGRP(r) MoAbs in migraine: what evidence?

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 50% of patients that receive a CGRP(r) MoAb for the preventative treatment of migraine are expected to discontinue therapy. For patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy, few clinical options are available. One potential option is to switch CGRP(r) MoAbs, however, data concerning the efficacy of this intervention is scarce.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript aims to summarize all available data concerning the potential efficacy of switching CGRP(r) MoAbs following previous medication discontinuation. Data was sourced by completing a database search for the terms: 'CGRP monoclonal antibody switch OR CGRP monoclonal antibody switching.'

EXPERT OPINION

While data considering the potential efficacy of CGRP(r) switching continues to grow, our expert opinion supports the most recent European Headache Federation statement regarding CGRP(r) MoAb prescribing practices, concluding that there remains insufficient data to determine the efficacy of this intervention. As this topic is of significant clinical importance, we recommend a call-to-action to expand on current data considering the therapeutic options for patients that discontinue CGRP(r) MoAb therapy.

Migraine and Its Treatment from the Medicinal Chemistry Perspective

Migraine is a disease of neurovascular origin that affects the quality of life of more than one billion people and ranks sixth among the most common diseases in the world. Migraine is characterized by a moderate or severe recurrent and throbbing headache, accompanied by nausea, vomiting, and photo-phonophobia. It usually starts in adolescence and is twice as common in women as in men. It is classified as with or without aura and has chronic or acute treatment types according to the frequency of occurrence. In acute treatment, analgesics that relieve pain in the fastest way are preferred, while there are different options in chronic treatment. While non-specific methods were used in the treatment of migraine until the 1950s, triptans, ditans, and CGRP-receptor-dependent therapies (monoclonal antibodies and gepants) started to be used in the clinic more recently. In this Review, we focus on the synthesis, side effects, and pharmacological and pharmacokinetic properties of FDA-approved drugs used in acute and preventive-specific treatment of migraine.

CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine.

RESULTS

A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine.

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder that affects a significant portion of the global population. As traditional pharmacological approaches often fall short in alleviating symptoms, the development of innovative therapies has garnered significant interest. This text aims to summarize the current pharmacological options for managing migraine and to explore the potential impact of novel therapies.

AREAS COVERED

We focused on conventional treatments, emerging therapies, and novel compounds in clinical development, including therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic therapies, and other options. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

Several novel treatment options for migraine have become available in recent years. Emerging pharmacological therapies targeting the trigeminovascular system, cannabis-based therapies, hormonal and metabolic interventions, and other emerging treatment modalities, may prove to be valuable for the treatment of migraine. Further research, clinical trials, and substantiated evidence are necessary to validate the efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of these therapeutic options.

Preventive Treatment of Migraine

OBJECTIVE

This article describes strategies for the preventive treatment of migraine including the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies and introduces novel paradigms for the preventive treatment of migraine.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

Multiple migraine medications targeting CGRP have been introduced since 2018, including injectable monoclonal antibodies (ie, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (ie, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, and zavegepant). With the exceptions of ubrogepant and zavegepant, which are approved only as acute treatments, all of these agents have demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of migraine; the monoclonal antibodies and atogepant have evidence of effectiveness in adults with either episodic or chronic migraine. The safety and tolerability profiles of CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine are favorable.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

The goals of preventive migraine therapy include reducing the frequency, severity, duration, and disability associated with attacks, reducing the need for acute treatment and the risk of medication overuse, enhancing self-efficacy and health-related quality of life, and reducing headache-related distress and interictal burden. Six drugs targeting CGRP (four monoclonal antibodies and two gepants) are now available for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. The efficacy of CGRP-targeted medications in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, together with good safety and tolerability, has led to the emergence of new approaches to preventive treatment.

Update on gepants for the treatment of chronic migraine

Chronic migraine (CM) is a profoundly debilitating condition that has detrimental clinical and social outcomes. Over the past two decades, novel small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, known as gepants, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been developed, ushering in a new era of migraine-specific treatment. In this review, we discuss the literature investigating the role of gepants for the treatment of CM. Numerous completed and ongoing clinical studies have conclusively demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of several gepants for the acute treatment of migraine. However, preventive trials involving gepants have focused on patients with episodic migraine, with atogepant being the only gepant approved for CM prevention by the US Food and Drug Administration at the time of writing. Although some preliminary positive results have been reported, further research is still required to achieve additional advancements in the future. In summary, the effectiveness of gepants for treating individuals with CM are highly expected. This review highlights the development and current progress of gepants for the treatment of CM, focusing both on their role as acute abortive agents and preventive measures and on their concomitant use with other antimigraine medications, such as CGRP mAbs or triptans.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed.

METHODS

ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population.

FUNDING

Allergan (now AbbVie).

Safety and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of pooled data from four clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Conventional, non-specific preventive migraine treatments often demonstrate low rates of treatment persistence due to poor efficacy or tolerability. Effective, well-tolerated preventive treatments are needed to reduce migraine symptoms, improve function, and enhance quality of life. Atogepant is a migraine-specific oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist that is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis evaluated the safety and tolerability profile of atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, including adverse events (AEs) of interest, such as constipation, nausea, hepatic safety, weight changes, and cardiac disorders.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis was performed using data pooled from 2 (12-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 (40- and 52-week) open-label long-term safety (LTS) trials of oral atogepant for episodic migraine (EM).

RESULTS

The safety population included 1550 participants from the pooled RCTs (atogepant, n = 1142; placebo, n = 408) and 1424 participants from the pooled LTS trials (atogepant, n = 1228; standard care [SC], n = 196). In total, 643/1142 (56.3%) atogepant participants and 218/408 (53.4%) placebo participants experienced ≥ 1 treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) in the RCTs. In the LTS trials, 792/1228 (64.5%) of atogepant participants and 154/196 (78.6%) of SC participants experienced ≥ 1 TEAEs. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) in participants who received atogepant once daily were upper respiratory tract infection (5.3% in RCTs, 7.7% in LTS trials), constipation (6.1% in RCTs, 5.0% in LTS trials), nausea (6.6% in RCTs, 4.6% in LTS trials), and urinary tract infection (3.4% in RCTs, 5.2% in LTS trials). Additionally, weight loss appeared to be dose- and duration-dependent. Most TEAEs were considered unrelated to study drug and few led to discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, atogepant is safe and well tolerated in pooled RCTs and LTS trials for the preventive treatment of EM in adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02848326 (MD-01), NCT03777059 (ADVANCE), NCT03700320 (study 302), NCT03939312 (study 309).

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice.

METHODS

An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1-12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.65 [-2.49, -0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles.

CONCLUSION

In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

CGRP Antagonism and Ketogenic Diet in the Treatment of Migraine

The study of migraine is based on the complexity of the pathology, both at the pathophysiological and epidemiological levels. Although it affects more than a billion people worldwide, it is often underestimated and underreported by patients. Migraine must not be confused with a simple headache; it is a serious and disabling disease that causes considerable limitations in the daily life of afflicted people, including social, work, and emotional effects. Therefore, it causes a daily state of suffering and discomfort. It is important to point out that this pathology not only has a decisive impact on the quality of life of those who suffer from it but also on their families and, more generally, on society as a whole. The clinical picture of migraine is complex, with debilitating unilateral or bilateral head pain, and is often associated with characteristic symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, photophobia, and phonophobia. Hormonal, environmental, psychological, dietary, or other factors can trigger it. The present review focuses on the analysis of the physiopathological and pharmacological aspects of migraine, up to the correct dietary approach, with specific nutritional interventions aimed at modulating the symptoms. Based on the symptoms that the patient experiences, targeted and specific therapy is chosen to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks. Specifically, the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the pathogenesis of migraine is analyzed, along with the drugs that effectively target the corresponding receptor. Particularly, CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are very effective drugs in the treatment of migraine, given their high diffusion in the brain. Moreover, following a ketogenic diet for only one or two months has been demonstrated to reduce migraine attacks. In this review, we highlight the diverse facets of migraine, from its physiopathological and pharmacological aspects to prevention and therapy.

Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

Atogepant: Mechanism of action, clinical and translational science

Since the discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in 1982, its integral role in migraine pathophysiology, specifically migraine pain, has been demonstrated through cumulative scientific discoveries that have led to the development and approval of migraine-specific therapeutics. Today, eight drugs, including monoclonal antibodies and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have received approval for acute or preventive treatment of migraine. The primary mechanism of these drugs is to block CGRP signaling, thus preventing CGRP-mediated nociception and neurogenic inflammation. Here, we focus on atogepant, a highly potent and selective gepant and the first and only oral medication approved for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine in adults. In this article, we summarize the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology and the mechanism of action of atogepant. In addition, we provide an overview of atogepant's pharmacology and the key clinical trials and outcomes that have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of atogepant.

The history and rationale of the development of new drugs for migraine treatment

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling diseases in the world. Migraine attack treatments and prophylactic treatments of this disease are essential to lessen its individual, social, and economic impact. This is a narrative review of the main drugs used for treating migraine, as well as the experimental models and the theoretical frameworks that led to their development. Ergot derivatives, triptans, non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants, beta-blockers,: flunarizine,: valproic acid,: topiramate, onabotulinumtoxin A, ditans, monoclonal antibodies against CGRP and its receptor, and gepants are discussed. Possible therapeutic targets for the development of new drugs that are under development are also addressed. Many of the drugs currently in use for treating migraine were developed for the treatment of other diseases, but have proven effective for the treatment of migraine, expanding knowledge about the disease. With a better understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine, new drugs have been and continue to be developed specifically for the treatment of this disease.

New drugs targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide for the management of migraines

INTRODUCTION

Significant advances in migraine research have contributed to the development of new drugs for the treatment of migraine. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) or its receptor and CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) have been associated with a good safety profile and resulted in an overall efficacy in reducing the number of monthly migraine days both in episodic and chronic forms of migraine.

AREAS COVERED

The results from main investigation studies (phase 2 or 3) of CGRP-targeting drugs (both anti-CGRP mAbs and gepants) are reported in this expert-opinion review.

EXPERT OPINION

The introduction of new drugs targeting CGRP is a significant breakthrough in the migraine field, and represents a new generation of therapeutic agents that are available to manage migraine. The evaluation of efficacy and safety in the long-term follow-up and the development of trials comparing the available drugs could improve the current knowledge. The economic sustainability of these drugs remains to be clarified, and a cost-cutting campaign should be promoted based on the high burden of migraine.

Onabotulinumtoxin-A: Previous Prophylactic Treatment Might Improve Subsequent Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Response in Patients with Chronic Migraine

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether previous preventive treatment with onabotulinumtoxin-A might influence subsequent clinical response following a switch to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). The present retrospective study was conducted at the Headache Centre-Neurology Clinic at the Spedali Civili Hospital of Brescia between November 2018 and May 2023. The primary objective was to assess clinical outcome (monthly headache days (MHDs), monthly migraine days (MMDs), mean analgesics consumption, and clinical disability according to Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS)) following three months (T3) of preventive treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs comparing patients who did and those who did not previously receive treatment with Onabotulinumtoxin-A. Moreover, we aimed to evaluate whether the clinical response to anti-CGRP mAbs was affected by the number of previous Onabotulinumtoxin-A administrations. At T3, compared to Onabotulinumtoxin-A naïve patients, patients who previously received Onabotulinumtoxin-A documented fewer MMDs (3.3 ± 3.7 versus 5.2 ± 5.0; p = 0.017) and a lower MIDAS score (23.2 ± 20.9 versus 37.4 ± 39.6; p = 0.013). Patients who received at least 3 onabotulinumtoxin-A administrations documented, at T3, lower MMDs compared to those who received fewer cycles (respectively, 2.1 ± 2.7 vs. 6.5 ± 4.4; p = 0.024). In conclusion, according to our data, previous treatment with onabotulinumtoxin-A might improve subsequent response to anti-CGRP mAbs preventive treatment.

Update of Gepants in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the unmet therapeutic needs of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and/or medication overuse, available treatment options are limited. Recently, four calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have been approved for the treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the preventive treatment of CM with gepants and highlights recent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown promising results for rimegepant and atogepant as preventive treatments for CM. In an RCT targeting patients with CM, atogepant demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean monthly migraine days, irrespective of acute medication overuse. Moreover, the patients reported no significant safety concerns and exhibited good tolerance to treatment. These findings highlight the potential of gepants as a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with CM and/or medication overuse. Gepant use will help improve the management and quality of life of individuals with this debilitating condition.

Effects of CYP3A4 inhibition/induction and OATP inhibition on the pharmacokinetics of atogepant in healthy adults

Aim: Atogepant, a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is a substrate of OATP and metabolized by CYP3A4. Effect of multiple-dose itraconazole (strong CYP3A4 inhibitor), single-dose rifampin (strong OATP inhibitor) and multiple-dose rifampin (strong CYP3A4 inducer) on single-dose pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of atogepant were assessed. Methods: Two phase I, open-label, single-center, crossover trials enrolled healthy adults. Results: Cmax and AUC of atogepant increased when co-administered with itraconazole. Atogepant systemic exposure increased following co-administration with single-dose rifampin. Atogepant systemic exposure decreased with co-administration of multiple-dose rifampin. Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were predominantly mild or moderate, and included constipation, dizziness, headache and nauseas. Conclusion: Systemic exposure of atogepant increased significantly when co-administered with a strong CYP3A4 or OATP inhibitor and decreased significantly when co-administered with a strong CYP3A4 inducer.