Eptinezumab for the treatment of migraine

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

Unmet Needs in Preventive Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common cause of work disability in young women and the second one in the general population. Preventive treatment can reduce the frequency of attacks and their intensity, consequently improving the quality of life. Despite this, global health systems have shown important gaps in addressing optimal management of preventive therapy. Despite numerous adverse effects of traditional medications for migraine prevention being well known, these medications continue to be considered the standard of care for prophylaxis of this disease in many contexts. On the other hand, the widespread use of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, which have marked a breakthrough in prophylactic therapy of migraine, has been limited because of their high cost. We also highlight important shortcomings in migraine management by general practitioners (GPs) and poor patient education on the disease with a consequent delay in referring selected patients to dedicated headache centres. Over the next few years, we expect the headache medicine community to mobilize to address these gaps in preventive treatment of migraine.

Quantity changes in acute headache medication use among patients with chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab: subanalysis of the PROMISE-2 study

Background

Patients with chronic migraine (CM) treated with eptinezumab in the PROMISE-2 trial achieved greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, impact, and acute headache medication (AHM) use than did patients who received placebo. This post hoc analysis examines relationships between headache frequency reductions and changes in AHM use in patients in PROMISE-2.

Methods

PROMISE-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in adults with CM. Patients were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously once every 12 weeks for up to two doses. Patients recorded headache/AHM information daily and for each event in an electronic diary; data from all days with daily reports were included. Shifts in headache frequency and AHM use were assessed in the three populations: total CM population, patients with CM and medication-overuse headache (MOH), and patients with CM and MOH who were ≥ 50% responders during treatment (response over weeks 1–24).

Results

A total of 1072 adults with CM received treatment (eptinezumab, n = 706; placebo, n = 366). Mean baseline headache frequency was 20.5 days; mean baseline AHM days was 13.4; 431 patients had MOH, of which 225 (52.2%) experienced ≥50% response over weeks 1–24. Relative to baseline, the proportion of days with both headache and AHM use decreased 25.1% (eptinezumab) versus 17.0% (placebo) in the total population (N = 1072), 29.2% versus 18.4% in the MOH subpopulation (n = 431), and 38.3% versus 31.5% in the CM with MOH population with ≥50% response subgroup (n = 225) during weeks 1–24. The proportion of days with headache and triptan use decreased 9.1% (eptinezumab) versus 5.8% (placebo), 11.8% versus 7.2%, and 14.5% versus 12.6%, respectively. Reductions in other AHM types were smaller.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis, eptinezumab use in patients with CM was associated with greater decreases in days with headache with AHM overall and with triptans in particular. The magnitude of effect was greater in the subgroup of CM patients with MOH and ≥ 50% response.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02974153.

Graphical abstract

Eptinezumab reduces headache frequency and acute medication use in patients with chronic migraine.

Recently approved and emerging drug options for migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

: Migraine occupies the first position regarding to the disability caused in female working population (15-49 years). Research in the field of prophylaxis of this pathology has made enormous strides in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review we retrace the most important scientific evidence regarding recently approved and emerging drug for prophylactic treatment of migraine. The purpose of this article is in fact to evaluate currently approved or emerging pharmacological agents for migraine prophylaxis. This review is based on literature published in peer review journal obtained through PubMed, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov and US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide signalling pathway (CGRP) have marked an innovation in prophylactic migraine therapy. The combination of Onabotulinumtoxin-A (OBTA) and mAbs appears to be an effective, but costly, therapeutic option for resistant cases. New classes of molecules like gepants and ditans seem to give exceptional results. In addition, new prophylactic drugs are emerging with several targets: the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), ion channels, several receptors coupled to G proteins, orexin, and glutamate. All these therapies will implement and improve migraine management, as well as personalized medicine for each patient.

Clinical Immunogenicity Evaluation of Eptinezumab, a Therapeutic Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine

Background

Eptinezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds calcitonin gene-related peptide and is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. This analysis characterizes the immunogenic profile of eptinezumab using data from clinical trials of eptinezumab for migraine prevention.

Methods

Immunogenicity data were collected from five studies that included 2076 patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with eptinezumab at dose levels ranging from 10 to 1000 mg, administered intravenously for up to 4 doses at 12-week intervals. Anti-drug antibody (ADA) results were available from 2074 of these patients. Four studies were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with ADA monitoring for up to 56 weeks; one was a 2-year, open-label, phase 3 safety study with ADA monitoring for 104 weeks. Patients who had a confirmed ADA-positive result at the end-of-study visit were monitored for up to 6 additional months. Development of ADA and neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were evaluated to explore three key areas of potential impact: pharmacokinetic exposure profile (eptinezumab trough plasma concentrations), efficacy (change in monthly migraine days), and safety (rates of treatment-emergent adverse events). These studies included methods designed to capture the dynamics of a potential humoral immune response to eptinezumab treatment, and descriptive analyses were applied to interpret the relationship of ADA signals to drug exposure, efficacy, and safety.

Results

Pooled across the five clinical trials, treatment-emergent ADAs and NAbs occurred in 15.8 and 6.2% of eptinezumab-treated patients, respectively. Highly consistent profiles were observed across all studies, with initial onset of detectable ADA observed at the week 8 measurement and maximal ADA frequency and titer observed at week 24, regardless of eptinezumab dose level or number of doses. After 24 weeks, the ADA and NAb titers steadily declined despite additional doses of eptinezumab.

Interpretation

Collectively, these integrated analyses did not demonstrate any clinically meaningful impact from ADA occurring after treatment with eptinezumab. The ADA profiles were low titer and transient, with the incidence and magnitude of ADA or NAb responses declining after week 24. Development of ADAs and NAbs did not impact the efficacy and safety profiles of eptinezumab.