Evaluation of 2-Hour Post-Dose Efficacy of Lasmiditan for the Acute Treatment of Difficult-to-Treat Migraine Attacks

An update on pharmacotherapy for trigeminal neuralgia

INTRODUCTION

Trigeminal neuralgia is a rare condition that can be effectively treated by carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine but these older drugs are associated with dose-dependent and potentially treatment-limiting adverse effects. Third-generation anticonvulsants, new calcitonin gene-related peptide blockers for migraine, and older drugs such as ketamine and cannabinoids may be promising adjuvants or monotherapeutic options.

AREAS COVERED

The new drugs, their presumed mechanisms of action, safety and efficacy are discussed herein. There is a paucity of robust clinical evidence in support of these drugs for trigeminal neuralgia. New migraine agents are considered as well although migraines and trigeminal neuralgia are distinct, albeit similar, conditions. No new drugs have been released to market in recent years with the specific indication of trigeminal neuralgia.

EXPERT OPINION

In real-world clinical practice, about half of trigeminal neuralgia patients take more than one agent for prevention and combination therapy may be the optimal approach. Combination therapy might allow for lower doses of carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine, thus reducing the number and severity of potential adverse events but the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions must be considered. Drug therapy for trigeminal neuralgia involves acute or abortive treatments, often administered in hospital versus long-term preventive therapy, usually involving oral agents.

Pituitary cyclase-activating polypeptide targeted treatments for the treatment of primary headache disorders

OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a complex and disabling neurological disorder. Recent years have witnessed the development and emergence of novel treatments for the condition, namely those targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). However, there remains a substantial need for further treatments for those unresponsive to current therapies. Targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) as a possible therapeutic strategy in the primary headache disorders has gained interest over recent years.

METHODS

This review will summarize what we know about PACAP to date: its expression, receptors, roles in migraine and cluster headache biology, insights gained from preclinical and clinical models of migraine, and therapeutic scope.

RESULTS

PACAP shares homology with vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) and is one of several vasoactive neuropeptides along with CGRP and VIP, which has been implicated in migraine neurobiology. PACAP is widely expressed in areas of interest in migraine pathophysiology, such as the thalamus, trigeminal nucleus caudalis, and sphenopalatine ganglion. Preclinical evidence suggests a role for PACAP in trigeminovascular sensitization, while clinical evidence shows ictal release of PACAP in migraine and intravenous infusion of PACAP triggering attacks in susceptible individuals. PACAP leads to dural vasodilatation and secondary central phenomena via its binding to different G-protein-coupled receptors, and intracellular downstream effects through cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and phosphokinase C (PKC). Targeting PACAP as a therapeutic strategy in headache has been explored using monoclonal antibodies developed against PACAP and against the PAC1 receptor, with initial positive results.

INTERPRETATION

Future clinical trials hold considerable promise for a new therapeutic approach using PACAP-targeted therapies in both migraine and cluster headache.

Efficacy and tolerability of 100 mg of lasmiditan for migraine: A multi-center, prospective observational real-world study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan, a new medication for acute migraine attacks, is necessary.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, observational, multi-center, real-world study. A total of 48 patients with migraine (44 females, 44.6 ± 12.9 years old) were included in this study.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients (47.9%) reported they were headache-free two hours after taking lasmiditan and were categorized into the responder group. In total, 44 patients (91.7%) experienced at least one side effect within two hours of taking the medication. Dizziness, somnolence, malaise, nausea, and palpitations were reported by 56.3% (n = 27), 45.8% (n = 22), 37.5% (n = 18), 20.8% (n = 10), and 14.6% (n = 7) of patients respectively. Of 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) indicated that they preferred lasmiditan to their previous acute treatment. There were no predictive factors for efficacy.

CONCLUSION

This real-world study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan. More than 90% of patients experienced side effects from lasmiditan. Approximately 40% of patients preferred lasmiditan despite the occurrence of side effects.

Outcomes and Factors Associated with Insufficient Effectiveness of Acute Treatments of Migraine in Japan: Results of the ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment, and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME [Japan]) Study

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of patient outcomes and treatment effectiveness associated with acute migraine treatments in Japan is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and treatment effectiveness in three acute treatment groups from OVERCOME (Japan): over-the-counter (OTC) only, prescription nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs/acetaminophen (Rx-NSAIDs/ACE) only, and triptans.

METHODS

OVERCOME (Japan) was an observational, cross-sectional, population-based web survey of people with migraine (July-September 2020). PROs, including the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ), Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Migraine (WPAI-M), were compared pairwise between treatment groups. Logistic regression was used to examine treatment effectiveness.

RESULTS

The analysis included 9075 survey respondents (OTC only: n = 5791; Rx-NSAIDs/ACE only: n = 751; triptans: n = 2533). Triptan users reported the lowest MSQ scores, most severe disability (MIDAS: 20.7% versus 6.3% and 11.6%) and severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: 50.1% versus 21.2% and 19.8%), and greatest work impairment (WPAI-M: 50.4% versus 32.2% and 30.8%) compared with the OTC and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Treatment effectiveness was very poor-to-poor for 60.9%, 43.1%, and 47.6% of the triptan, OTC, and Rx-NSAIDs/ACE groups, respectively. Severe interictal burden was significantly associated with insufficient treatment effectiveness (odds ratios, severe versus no burden: 0.47 [95% confidence interval: 0.40-0.54], 0.56 [0.35-0.89], and 0.41 [0.32-0.52], for the OTC, Rx-NSAIDs/ACE, and triptan groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

People with high migraine burden used triptans for acute treatment, but many reported poor treatment effectiveness. Education may be required to promote better treatments, including earlier introduction of migraine-specific acute and preventive medications.

Profile of Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: Design, Development, and Place in Therapy

Migraine is a common neurological disorder that is present in a large proportion of the global population. It is estimated to occur in around 20.7% of women and 10.7% of men in the United States. The pathophysiology of migraine is a major focus of research, and medications have been developed to interrupt the processes that generate headache and other bothersome symptoms of migraine attacks. The triptan class of medications acts as a direct agonist at the 5-HT1B/D receptor but its use is limited by contraindications for those with coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan is a first-in-class agonist at the 5-HT1F serotonin receptor that does not appear to generate vasoconstriction. This article reviews the design, development, and place in therapy for lasmiditan. A narrative review of the literature using the Ovid MEDLINE database was performed. The rationale behind the development of lasmiditan and pre-clinical, proof-of-concept, Phase II, pivotal, Phase III trials and post-hoc data is covered. Additionally, the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan when compared to other acute treatments in migraine is described, including lasmiditan's side effect profile and status as a Schedule V substance. Further, head-to-head studies of lasmiditan compared with other acute treatments are required.

Novel Migraine Treatments: A Review

Aims: To present a review of the mechanisms of action, available clinical data, and safety profiles of novel migraine therapeutics to inform practice. Methods: PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (24 publications), review articles (15 publications), and other pertinent literature (16 publications) discussing the novel migraine therapeutics available between the years 2010 and 2021. All publications were reviewed to assess the mechanism of action, relevant clinical data, and side effect profile for each novel treatment. Therapeutic gain was also recorded in studies that included a placebo arm. Results: A total of 55 studies were included in the final analysis. In the preventive treatment of migraine, novel medications target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and fall into either the monoclonal anti-CGRP or gepant class. For the acute treatment of migraine, novel medications fall into either the ditan or gepant class. Several medical devices have been developed for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Conclusion: Novel therapeutics are available for both the prevention and acute treatment of migraine headaches. These new medications and neuromodulatory devices appear overall to be safe and effective in the management of migraine headaches.

Migraine history and response to lasmiditan across racial and ethnic groups

OBJECTIVE

The robust enrollment in SPARTAN and SAMURAI provided the opportunity to present post-hoc descriptive details on migraine disease characteristics and treatment outcomes after treatment with lasmiditan, a selective serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist, in racial and ethnic subgroups.

METHODS

Descriptive data from racial (White [W](n = 3471) and Black or African American [AA](n = 792)) and ethnic (Hispanic or Latinx [HL](n = 775) and Non-Hispanic or Latinx [Non-HL](n = 3637)) populations are presented on pooled data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT2605174]). Patients were treated with lasmiditan (50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg) or placebo for a single migraine attack of moderate-to-severe intensity. Efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Safety was evaluated and reported by occurrences of adverse events.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics were generally similar across populations. W participants had longer migraine history than AA participants, and Non-HL participants had more migraine disability than HL participants. In the lasmiditan single-attack studies, AA participants waited longer than W participants to take study drug. A higher proportion of HL participants rated baseline migraine severity as severe compared to Non-HL participants. Response to lasmiditan was similar across racial and ethnic groups, including pain response, freedom from most bothersome symptom and migraine-related disability, and safety and tolerability. Across multiple outcomes, AA and HL participants tended to report more positive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in demographic and clinical characteristics across racial and ethnic groups. Similar lasmiditan efficacy and safety outcomes were observed in AA versus W participants, and in HL versus Non-HL participants. Small observed differences may be driven by a tendency toward a more positive response observed across all treatment groups by AA and HL participants.

Efficacy of Lasmiditan Across Patient and Migraine Characteristics in Japanese Patients with Migraine: A Secondary Analysis of the MONONOFU Trial

INTRODUCTION

This MONONOFU trial subgroup analysis evaluates the efficacy of lasmiditan across patient and migraine characteristics in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

MONONOFU trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:7:6:7 ratio to receive lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo for a single migraine attack within 4 h of pain onset. Efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo was evaluated at 2 h post dose for proportion of patients with headache pain freedom. Efficacy was assessed across patient characteristics (age, sex, body weight, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), and comorbidity of tension-type headache), migraine disease characteristics (history of migraine with aura, migraine prevention therapy, triptan response, and triptan use or nonuse), and migraine attack characteristics (headache severity, aggressive headache, attack during perimenstrual period, time to dosing, time of dosing, experienced treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of dizziness, and experienced TEAE of somnolence). Logistic regression was used; all subgroup analyses were not analyzed with multiplicity-adjusted statistical tests.

RESULTS

Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by each arm) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups and lasmiditan doses, except for CVRF (100 mg and 200 mg), migraine with aura (50 mg), triptan response (50 mg), and time to dosing (200 mg). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by overall) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups, except for CVRFs. Higher proportions of patients were pain free at 2 h post dose when treated with lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg) versus placebo, irrespective of most patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Although few interactions were observed, lasmiditan could be a promising acute treatment option in a wide range of Japanese patients with migraine, as efficacy is not generally influenced by patient and migraine characteristics.

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.

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.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.