Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine

CGRP Modulating Therapies: An Update

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) is a vasoactive neuropeptide involved in the pathophysiology ofmigraine. CGRP has been targeted for both preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

Provide a summary of the most clinically relevant literature surrounding CGRP modulating therapies.

METHODS

This update on CGRP modulating therapies includes articles selected as most clinically relevant by theauthors.

CONCLUSION

CGRP modulating therapies are an exciting new addition to migraine treatment given their safety andtolerability. Additionally, compared to traditional migraine preventive medication these treatments are migrainespecific.Further real-world and clinical data is ongoing to better understand these treatments that continue to gainfavor in the management of migraine.

Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut-scores.

RESULTS

Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population-based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate-to-severe MIDAS disability (Grades III-IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine-related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation.

Anti-CGRP mAbs for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: An Overview Review and a Cost Saving Analysis in the Global Scenario

Objectives: Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies selective for the calcitonin gene-related peptide and its ligand (anti-CGRP mAbs) have been marketed both in the USA and EU based on the positive efficacy results in the prevention of migraine. This search has been carried out with the aim of collecting real-world evidence on the effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs, performing a cost-savings analysis, and comparing performances among anti-CGRP mAbs medicines marketed in the American and European market. Methods: The literature review has been performed in PubMed database on 31 December 2022; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-CGRP mAbs has been extracted consulting an American national database. Results: The results confirm efficacy and good tolerability of anti-CGRP mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. In fact, all extracted studies showed a protective risk factor exposure in monthly migraine days reduction for all the anti-CGRP mAbs, whereas the cost analysis showed that using eptinezumab, in a quarter there is a cost saving of at least $425 per patient, compared with the other anti-CGRP mAbs. Conclusions: With equal efficacy and equal safety, anti-CGRP mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the healthcare services resources.

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.

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.

Towards precision medicine in migraine: Recent therapeutic advances and potential biomarkers to understand heterogeneity and treatment response

After 35 years since the introduction of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), we are living in the era of the second great revolution in migraine therapies. First, discoveries of triptans provided a breakthrough in acute migraine treatment utilizing bench-to-bedside research results on the role of serotonin in migraine. Next, the discovery of the role of neuropeptides, more specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine attack led to the development of anti-CGRP therapies that are effective both in acute and preventive treatment, and are also able to reduce migraine-related burden. Here, we reviewed the most recent clinical studies and real-world data on available migraine-specific medications, including triptans, ditants, gepants and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Novel drug targets, such as PACAP and amylins were also discussed. To address the main challenges of migraine therapy, the high heterogeneity of people with migraine, the prevalent presence of various comorbid disorders, and the insufficient medical care of migraine patients were covered. Promising novel approaches from the fields of omics, blood and saliva biomarker, imaging and provocation studies might bring solutions for these challenges with the potential to identify further drug targets, distinguish more homogeneous patient subgroups, contribute to more optimal drug selection strategies, and detect biomarkers in association with headache features or predicting treatment efficacy. In the future, the combined analysis of data of different biomarker modalities with machine learning algorithms may serve precision medicine in migraine treatment.

New Approaches to Shifting the Migraine Treatment Paradigm

The standard of care paradigm for migraine treatment has been based almost exclusively on approaches that grew out of the happenstance use of market pharmaceuticals. Only methysergide, which has long since been removed from use for safety concerns, the ergotamine family of drugs, and the triptans were explicitly developed with migraine and other vascular headaches in mind. While the forward and innovative thinking to utilize the broad array of agents to treat migraine served millions well, their therapeutic efficacy was often low, and adverse event profiles were troublesome in the least. Advances in biochemical and molecular biology and the application of advanced "designing drugs" methods have brought about a potentially significant shift in treatment. The gepants have efficacies similar to the triptans but without vascular safety or medication overuse concerns. Preventative gepants offer innovative approaches to prevention and efficacy that exceed even the CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Those monoclonal antibodies brought rapid and highly effective outcomes across the spectrum of migraine. They outpaced older oral medication efficacy and eliminated most adverse events while potentially improving compliance with monthly or quarterly dosing. Other serotonin receptors beyond the 5HT1B and1D receptors have been targeted for decades. They now lead us to better formulations of dihydroergotamine for efficacy, convenience, and tolerability, and a 5HT1F-specific acute treatment like the gepants opens new options for acute management. Neuromodulation goes back to the mid-1800's. Our improved understanding of applied biomedical engineering has brought forward several tantalizing devices, including the application of currents distant from the target and patient regulated. Whether these advances change the paradigm of migraine treatment and standards of care remains to be seen, and issues such as cost and patient acceptance will help mold it.

Developing nociceptor-selective treatments for acute and chronic pain

Despite substantial efforts dedicated to the development of new, nonaddictive analgesics, success in treating pain has been limited. Clinically available analgesic agents generally lack efficacy and may have undesirable side effects. Traditional target-based drug discovery efforts that generate compounds with selectivity for single targets have a high rate of attrition because of their poor clinical efficacy. Here, we examine the challenges associated with the current analgesic drug discovery model and review evidence in favor of stem cell–derived neuronal-based screening approaches for the identification of analgesic targets and compounds for treating diverse forms of acute and chronic pain.