Consensus Statement: Cardiovascular Safety Profile of Triptans (5-HT1B/1D Agonists) in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Invention of novel 3-aminopiperidin-2-ones as calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists

A novel series of 3-amino-piperidin-2-one-based calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists was invented based upon the discovery of unexpected structure-activity observations. Initial exploration of the structure-activity relationships enabled the generation of a moderately potent lead structure (4). A series of modifications, including ring contraction and inversion of stereocenters, led to surprising improvements in CGRP receptor affinity. These studies identified compound 23, a structurally novel potent, orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonist.

Cardiovascular safety of dihydroergotamine mesylate delivered by precision olfactory delivery (INP104) for the acute treatment of migraine

OBJECTIVE

To report the cardiovascular (CV) safety of dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) administered by precision olfactory delivery (INP104) from two clinical trials.

BACKGROUND

Although the absolute risk is low, migraine is associated with an increased risk of CV events. DHE is a highly effective acute treatment for migraine, but due to its theoretical risk of promoting arterial vasoconstriction, DHE is contraindicated in patients with CV disease or an unfavorable risk factor profile. The INP104 is a novel drug-device combination product approved for acute treatment of migraine that delivers DHE to the upper nasal space using precision olfactory delivery (POD®).

METHODS

The STOP 101 was a Phase 1 open-label study that assessed the safety, tolerability, and bioavailability of INP104 1.45 mg, intravenous DHE 1.0 mg, and MIGRANAL (nasal DHE) 2.0 mg in healthy participants. The STOP 301 was a pivotal Phase 3, open-label study that assessed the safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of INP104 1.45 mg over 24 and 52 weeks in patients with migraine. In both studies, active or a history of CV disease, as well as significant CV risk factors, were exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In STOP 101, 36 participants received one or more doses of investigational product. Treatment with intravenous DHE, but not INP104 or nasal DHE, resulted in clinically relevant changes from baseline in systolic blood pressure (BP; 11.4 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-15.0) and diastolic BP (13.3 mmHg, 95% CI 9.4-17.1) at 5 min post-dose, persisting up to 30 min post-dose for systolic BP (6.3 mmHg; 95% CI 3.0-9.5) and diastolic BP (7.9 mmHg, 95% CI 3.9-11.9). None of the treatments produced any clinically meaningful electrocardiogram (ECG) changes. In STOP 301, 354 patients received one or more doses of INP104. Over 24 weeks, five patients (1.4%) experienced a non-serious, vascular treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Minimal changes were observed for BP and ECG parameters over 24 or 52 weeks. Off-protocol concomitant use of triptans and other ergot derivatives did not result in any TEAEs.

CONCLUSION

In two separate studies, INP104 demonstrated a favorable CV safety profile when used in a study population without CV-related contraindications.

Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium in migraine: A review

BACKGROUND

Varied responses to acute migraine medications have been observed, with over one-third (34.5%) of patients reporting insufficient headache relief. Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium, a single, fixed-dose combination tablet comprising sumatriptan 85 mg and naproxen sodium 500 mg, was developed with the rationale of targeting multiple putative mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of migraine to optimise acute migraine care.

METHODS

A narrative review of clinical trials investigating sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for both adults and adolescents was performed in March 2024.

RESULTS

Across a total of 14 clinical trials in nine publications, sumatriptan-naproxen sodium offered greater efficacy for 2-h pain freedom (14/14) and sustained pain-free response up to 24 h (13/14) compared with monotherapy and/or placebo for both adult and adolescent study participants with an acceptable and well-tolerated adverse effect profile. Clinical trial data also demonstrates the effectiveness of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium in participants with allodynia, probable migraine, menstrual-related migraine and those with poor responses to acute, non-specific, migraine medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-mechanistic therapeutic agents offer an opportunity to optimise acute medications by targeting multiple mediators involved in the pathogenesis of migraine. Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium resulted in greater initial and sustained pain freedom, compared with either sumatriptan, naproxen-sodium and/or placebo, for the treatment of single or multiple attacks of migraine across both adult and adolescent study populations.

Safety of Triptans in Patients Who Have or Are at High Risk for Cardiovascular Disease: A Target Trial Emulation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of triptans in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrieved data from a multistate US-based health system (January 2000 to August 2022) on adults with migraine and confirmed cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, or at least two cardiovascular risk factors. We compared the effect of triptans to nontriptan treatments on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its components at 60 days of starting treatments. We emulated a target trial and used propensity score matching for analysis.

RESULTS

The 3518 patients in the triptan group were matched to the 3518 patients in the nontriptan group (median age, 55 years; 80.60% female). At 60 days, 52 patients (1.48%) in the triptan group had MACE, compared with 13 patients (0.37%) in the nontriptan group (relative risk [RR], 4.00; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.14). Patients treated with triptans also had significantly higher risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (15 patients (0.43%) vs 0 patients (0.00%)); heart failure (RR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.91 to 10.61); and nonfatal stroke (RR, 8.00; 95% CI, 1.00 to 63.96). Five patients (0.14%) in each group died. The findings were consistent when analyses were restricted to sumatriptan, oral administration of triptan, patients with chronic migraine, history of cardiovascular disease, or history of cerebrovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Triptans likely increase the risk of MACE; however, the incidence of MACE remains low in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Treatments of Migraine With Triptans in Individuals With Elevated Cardiovascular Risk and in Pregnant Women.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT05854992 (https://classic.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/ct2/show/NCT05854992).

Triptans in the Acute Migraine Management of Children and Adolescents: An Update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize recent findings regarding triptan use in the acute treatment of pediatric migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prevalence of pediatric migraine is rising. The American Headache Society and American Academy of Neurology updated guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of acute migraine in youth. In the setting of a dearth of new randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we review current guidelines, triptan use in the emergency department, and an era of secondary analyses. Measuring the efficacy of triptans in pediatric migraine has been challenged by high placebo response rates. Secondary analyses, combining data from multiple RCTs, support that triptans are safe and effective in the treatment of migraine. Triptans are a vital tool and the only FDA-approved migraine-specific treatment available in pediatrics. There is a need for further studies and funding support in pediatric headache medicine.

Serotonergic Psychedelics: A Comparative Review of Efficacy, Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Binding Profile

Psychedelic compounds, including psilocybin, LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), DMT (N,N -dimethyltryptamine), and 5-MeO-DMT (5-methoxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine), all of which are serotonin 2A receptor agonists, are being investigated as potential treatments. This review aims to summarize the current clinical research on these 4 compounds and mescaline to guide future research. Their mechanism(s) of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, efficacy, and safety were reviewed. While evidence for therapeutic indications, with the exception of psilocybin for depression, is still relatively scarce, we noted no differences in psychedelic effects beyond effect duration. Therefore, it remains unclear whether different receptor profiles contribute to the therapeutic potential of these compounds. More research is needed to differentiate these compounds in order to inform which compounds might be best for different therapeutic uses.

Triptan use in elderly over 65 years and the risk of hospitalization for serious vascular events

BACKGROUND

Several studies have focused on the use of triptan and the risk of acute vascular events but the existence of such association is still debated and has never been quantified in patients over 65 years. To assess whether triptan use among older is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for acute vascular events.

METHODS

A propensity score-matched cohort study was designed using the French national health insurance database linked to hospital stays. Patients aged ≥ 65 years, newly treated by triptans between 2011 and 2014, were included… The primary event was hospitalization for an acute ischemic vascular event within de 90 days following triptan initiation. Association with triptan exposure was investigated through cox regression model, considering exposure at inclusion, and with exposure as a time-varying variable A case-crossover (CCO) and a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analyses were also conducted to address potential residual confounding.

RESULTS

The cohort included 24, 774 triptan users and 99 096 propensity matched controls (mean (SD) age: 71 years (5.9), 74% of women). Within 90 days after cohort entry, 163 events were observed in the triptan group, and 523 in the control group (0.66% vs. 0.53%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) exposed/not exposed 1.25 95%CI [1.05-1.49]; aHR time-varying 8.74 [5.21-14.66]). The association was significant (CCO) for all events (adjusted odds ratio (aOR1.63 [1.22-2.19]) with a more consistent association with cerebral events (aOR 2.14 [1.26-3.63]). The relative incidence (RI) for all events was 2.13 [1.76-2.58] in the SCCS, for cardiac (RI: 1.67 [1.23-2.27]) and for cerebral events (RI: 3.20, [2.30-4.45]).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of acute vascular events was low among triptan users. We found that triptan use among older may be associated with a low increased risk for acute vascular events, which may be more marked for cerebral events such as stroke, than for cardiac events.

The Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Rimegepant 75 mg Are Similar in Elderly and Nonelderly Adults: A Phase 1, Open-Label, Parallel-Group, Single-Dose Study

Rimegepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine ± aura and preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The pharmacokinetics of rimegepant in elderly and nonelderly subjects were evaluated. In an open-label Phase 1 study, 14 elderly (aged 65 years or older) and 14 nonelderly (aged 18 to less than 45 years) subjects each received a single oral dose of rimegepant 75 mg. Blood samples were collected before dosing and through 96 hours after dosing. The pharmacokinetic parameters of rimegepant after a single dose were similar in both age groups. Geometric least-squares mean ratios (elderly/nonelderly) of the natural log-transformed maximum observed plasma concentration and natural log-transformed area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity were 96.6 and 104.6, respectively. Eight (28.6%) subjects (4 elderly, 4 nonelderly) experienced 1 or more adverse events (AEs); all AEs were mild in intensity, and no serious AEs or AEs leading to discontinuation were reported. Following a single 75-mg dose of oral rimegepant, pharmacokinetic parameters were similar in elderly and nonelderly adults; no dose adjustment is warranted in elderly subjects.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: β-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

The Neuropsychiatric Safety Profile of Lasmiditan: A Comparative Disproportionality Analysis with Triptans

Migraine constitutes the world's second-leading cause of disability. Triptans, as serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, remain the first-line treatment, despite discouraged use in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan, a selective lipophilic 5-HT1F agonist without vasoconstrictive effects, is an emerging option. We aimed to investigate the safety profile of lasmiditan in the WHO pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase®) using a comparative disproportionality analysis with triptans. VigiBase® was queried for all reports involving lasmiditan and triptans. Disproportionality analyses relied on the calculation of the information component (IC), for which 95% confidence interval (CI) lower bound positivity was required for signal detection. We obtained 826 reports involving lasmiditan. Overall, 10 adverse drug reaction classes were disproportionately reported with triptans, while only neurological (IC 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.7) and psychiatric (IC 1.5; 95% CI 1.3-1.7) disorders were disproportionately reported with lasmiditan. Sedation, serotonin syndrome, euphoric mood, and autoscopy had the strongest signals. When compared with triptans, 19 out of 22 neuropsychiatric signals persisted. The results of our analysis provide a more precise semiology of the neuropsychiatric effects of lasmiditan, with symptoms such as autoscopy and panic attacks. The cardiovascular adverse drug reaction risk with triptans was confirmed. In contrast, caution is warranted with lasmiditan use in patients with neurological or psychiatric comorbidities or serotonin syndrome risk. Our study was hindered by pharmacovigilance flaws, and further studies should help in validating these results. Our findings suggest that lasmiditan is a safe alternative for migraine treatment, especially when the neuropsychiatric risk is outweighed by the cardiovascular burden.

Rimegepant 75 mg in Subjects With Hepatic Impairment: Results of a Phase 1, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Study

Rimegepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist (gepant) with demonstrated efficacy and safety in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Here, we report the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single 75-mg oral dose of rimegepant in subjects with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and matched healthy subjects from an open-label, single-dose, 4-group phase 1 study. Thirty-six subjects aged 41-71 years were enrolled, including 6 each with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and 18 healthy subjects. All subjects completed the study. A <20% increase in total and unbound pharmacokinetics was observed in subjects with mild hepatic impairment and ≤65% increase with moderate hepatic impairment versus matched healthy controls. Total and unbound systemic exposure increased 2.0- and 3.9-fold in the severe hepatic impairment group. In subjects with severe hepatic impairment, geometric mean ratios (severe impairment/controls) for total concentrations were 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity, and 189.1% for maximum observed plasma concentration. Corresponding geometric mean ratios using unbound concentrations were 388.8% and 388.7%, respectively. Three (8.3%) subjects reported 4 treatment-emergent adverse events. Rimegepant is not recommended for use in adults with severe hepatic impairment.

The vascular role of CGRP: a systematic review of human studies

Intravenous infusion of human alpha calcitonin gene-related peptide (h-α-CGRP) has been applied to explore migraine pathogenesis and cerebral hemodynamics during the past three decades. Cumulative data implicate h-α-CGRP in regulating the vascular tone. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for clinical studies investigating the vascular changes upon intravenous infusion of h-α-CGRP in humans. A total of 386 studies were screened by title and abstract. Of these, 11 studies with 61 healthy participants and 177 participants diagnosed with migraine were included. Several studies reported hemodynamic effects including flushing, palpitation, warm sensation, heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), mean blood flow velocity of middle cerebral artery (mean V_MCA), and diameter of superficial temporal artery (STA). Upon the start of h-α-CGRP infusion, 163 of 165 (99%) participants had flushing, 98 of 155 (63%) participants reported palpitation, and 160 of 165 (97%) participants reported warm sensation. HR increased with 14%-58% and MABP decreased with 7%-12%. The mean V_MCA was decreased with 9.5%-21%, and the diameter of the STA was dilated with 41%-43%. The vascular changes lasted from 20 to >120 min. Intravenous infusion of h-α-CGRP caused a universal vasodilation without any serious adverse events. The involvement of CGRP in the systemic hemodynamic raises concerns regarding long-term blockade of CGRP in migraine patients with and without cardiovascular complications.

Association Between Migraine and Ischemic Cardio-Cerebrovascular Disease (CCVD) and Effects of Triptans and Ergotamine on the Risk of Ischemic CCVD in Patients with Migraine in the Korean NHIS-HEALS Cohort

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Triptans and ergotamine are commonly used to treat migraine, a risk factor for ischemic stroke. This study aimed to investigate the association between migraine and ischemic cardio-cerebrovascular disease (CCVD). Further analyses were performed to examine whether symptom-relieving treatment of migraine with triptans and ergotamine reduces ischemic CCVD in migraineurs.

METHODS

Participants from the Korean NHIS-HEALS cohort database were divided into patients reporting headache without migraine (HA), migraineurs who received at least one prescription for triptans or ergotamine (TE), and migraineurs who were prescribed neither triptans nor ergotamine (NTNE). Ischemic CCVDs comprised ischemic cerebrovascular diseases and cardiovascular diseases. Using cox proportional hazards regression models, primary and secondary analysis for risk of ischemic CCVDs was compared.

RESULTS

Among 62,272 patients diagnosed with migraine or HA, men with migraine or HA numbered 14,747 and 8935, respectively, while the numbers of women were 27,836 and 10,754, respectively. The median follow-up was 6.65 years. The overall incidence rate of CCVDs was 4728/38,590 (12.25%) in females and 3158/23,682 (13.33%) in males. Compared with the HA group, the hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CIs) of the TE and NTNE groups for ischemic CCVDs were 1.18 (1.01-1.39) and 1.39 (1.28-1.50), respectively, in males, and 1.22 (1.09-1.37) and 1.53 (1.42-1.65), respectively, in females, after full adjustment for confounding variables. Compared with the NTNE group, the HRs (95% CIs) of the TE group for ischemic CCVDs were 0.86 (0.73-0.999) in males and 0.80 (0.72-0.88) in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine increased the risk of ischemic CCVDs in both sexes, and migraineurs treated with triptans and ergotamine were at lower risk of ischemic CCVDs than migraineurs who did not take those medications, especially in women.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.

Revisiting Migraine: The Evolving Pathophysiology and the Expanding Management Armamentarium

Migraine affects about one billion people worldwide yearly and is one of the most common neurologic illnesses, with a high prevalence and morbidity, particularly among young adults and females. Migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including stress, sleep difficulties, and suicidal ideation. Migraine, despite its widespread occurrence, is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Because of the complicated and primarily unknown mechanisms of migraine formation, several social and biological risk factors, such as hormone imbalances, genetic and epigenetic impacts, and cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune illnesses, have been proposed. Through the mid-20th century diversion of the now-defunct vascular theory, the pathophysiology of migraine has developed from a historical study of the "humours" to a distinct entity as a neurological disorder. The range of therapeutic targets has broadened significantly, increasing the number of specialized clinical trials. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful research has resulted in the identification of major therapeutic classes: (i) triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, (ii) gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, (iii) ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, (iv) CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and (v) glurants, mGlu5 modulators, with further targets being explored. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent literature on epidemiology and risk factors and exposes knowledge gaps.

Utilization patterns, cardiovascular risk, and concomitant serotoninergic medications among triptan users between 2008 and 2018: A gender analysis in one Italian region, Tuscany

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of triptan use by gender in Tuscany, Italy, focusing on special user populations in which evidence on triptan safety is still not conclusive.

BACKGROUND

Growing evidence supports the role of gender differences in migraine pathophysiology and treatment. However, gender impact on triptan real-word utilization has been poorly investigated.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study was performed using the population-based Administrative Healthcare Database of Tuscany region (Italy). Subjects registered in the database on the January 1 of each year between 2008 and 2018 were identified. New users (NU) of triptans (ATC:N02CC*) were patients with one or more triptan dispensation during the year of interest and none in the past. Age, cardiovascular comorbidities representing an absolute or a possible contraindication to triptan utilization, concomitant serotonergic medications, and pattern of triptan use during 1-year follow-up were described by gender.

RESULTS

A total of 86,109 patients who received one or more triptan dispensing were identified. Of 64,672 NU (men = 17,039; women = 47,633), 10.2% (6823/64,672) were aged >65 years, who were mostly women (n = 4613). Among NU, men and women with absolute cardiovascular contraindications were 4.3% (740/17,039) and 2.1% (1022/47,633), respectively, while those concomitantly taking serotonergic medications were 17.2% (267/1549) and 21.9% (949/4330), respectively (949/4330). Regular users (two or more dispensing with ≥3 months between first and last observed dispensing) accounted for 26.4% of women (12,597/47,633) and 19.11% of men (3250/17,039); frequent users (≥15 dosage units/month during ≥3 consecutive months) were overall 0.1% (94/64,672) and 62.0% (58/94) of them concomitantly received serotonergic medications.

CONCLUSION

Considering gender differences in triptan use highlighted here, large scale observational studies are warranted to better define what populations are safe to use triptans and whether it is appropriate to tighten or relax certain recommendations on triptan use. In the meantime, any suspected adverse drug reaction observed in the special user populations highlighted in this study should be promptly reported.

Management of Episodic Migraine with Neuromodulation: A Case Report

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurovascular disorder that affects approximately 15% of the global population. Migraine attacks are a complex cascade of neurologic events that lead to debilitating symptoms and are often associated with inhibitory behavior. The constellation of severe signs and symptoms during the ictal phase (headache attack) makes migraine the third most common cause of disability globally in both sexes under the age of 50. Misuse of pharmaceuticals, such as opiates, can lead to devastating outcomes and exacerbation of pain and headache attacks. A safe and well-tolerated non-pharmacological research approach is high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the M1.

Safety profile of lasmiditan in patients with migraine in an Asian population

BACKGROUND

MONONOFU, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine, was pivotal for lasmiditan approval in Japan. However, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common than in global studies. A detailed safety profile would assist patient management.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Safety assessments in MONONOFU included specific terms reported, frequency, severity, time to onset, duration, TEAE management, common TEAE risk factors, and TEAE-efficacy associations.

RESULTS

Of 846 participants, 691 were assessed for safety. The proportion of participants reporting ≥1 TEAE was 23.4% with placebo and 70.9% with lasmiditan; 87.3% of TEAEs with lasmiditan were mild. The most frequent TEAEs with lasmiditan, dizziness (39.4%) and somnolence (19.3%), started ≤1 hour postdose (median durations: 2.5 and 3.3 hours, respectively). Higher lasmiditan dose, but not patient factors including body size, was identified as a clinically meaningful predictor of dizziness and somnolence. There were no adverse consequences of neurological TEAEs, which did not appear to adversely affect lasmiditan efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the MONONOFU study, TEAEs appeared typically mild, transient, and self-limiting. Lasmiditan may represent a useful and well-tolerated acute treatment option for smaller (body mass index <30 kg/m²) patients and Asian patients with migraine.

Lasmiditan for single migraine attack in Japanese patients with cardiovascular risk factors: subgroup analysis of a phase 2 randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Some migraine treatments are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors (CVRFs). We report safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, a new oral acute migraine treatment with no cardiovascular contraindication, in Japanese patients with CVRFs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine (met International Headache Society criteria, Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥11, disabling migraine for ≥1 year). Eligible patients were randomized (7:3:7:6) to placebo or lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg. This prespecified analysis described CVDs, CVRFs, and cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy (proportion pain-free, experienced pain relief, most bothersome symptom-free, or disability-free 2 hours post-dose) was evaluated within CVRF subgroups (≤1, ≥2).

RESULTS

Of 846 randomized patients, 691 were analyzed (CVRF≤1: 375; CVRF≥2: 316). The proportion of lasmiditan-treated patients with ≥1 TEAE was not related to CVRF numbers. Eighteen (3.8%) lasmiditan-treated and three (1.4%) placebo-treated patients reported likely cardiovascular TEAEs. Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo at relieving pain, symptoms, and disability in both CVRF subgroups. There was no consistent relationship between CVRF subgroups and efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective in Japanese patients with migraine and CVRFs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962738.

Exploring the Tryptophan Metabolic Pathways in Migraine-Related Mechanisms

Migraine is a complex neurovascular disorder, which causes intense socioeconomic problems worldwide. The pathophysiology of disease is enigmatic; accordingly, therapy is not sufficient. In recent years, migraine research focused on tryptophan, which is metabolized via two main pathways, the serotonin and kynurenine pathways, both of which produce neuroactive molecules that influence pain processing and stress response by disturbing neural and brain hypersensitivity and by interacting with molecules that control vascular and inflammatory actions. Serotonin has a role in trigeminal pain processing, and melatonin, which is another product of this pathway, also has a role in these processes. One of the end products of the kynurenine pathway is kynurenic acid (KYNA), which can decrease the overexpression of migraine-related neuropeptides in experimental conditions. However, the ability of KYNA to cross the blood-brain barrier is minimal, necessitating the development of synthetic analogs with potentially better pharmacokinetic properties to exploit its therapeutic potential. This review summarizes the main translational and clinical findings on tryptophan metabolism and certain neuropeptides, as well as therapeutic options that may be useful in the prevention and treatment of migraine.

Rimegepant for the treatment of migraine

Migraine is a common form of primary headache, affecting up to 1 in every 6 Americans. The pathophysiology is an intricate interplay of genetic factors and environmental influence and is still being elucidated in ongoing studies. The trigeminovascular system is now known to have a significant role in the initiation of migraines, including the release of pain mediators such as CGRP and substance P. Traditional treatment of migraine is usually divided into acute and preventive treatment. Acute therapy includes non-specific therapy, such as NSAIDs and other analgesics, which may provide relief in mild to moderate migraines. 5-HT1 agonists may provide relief in severe migraine, but are not universally effective and carry a significant side-effect profile with frequent redosing requirement. Prophylactic therapy may reduce the occurrence of acute migraine attacks in selected patients, but does not completely eliminate it. More recently, CGRP antagonism has been studied and shown to be effective in both abortion and prevention of migraine. Novel medications, targeting CGRP, divide into CGRP antibodies and receptor antagonists (gepants). Rimegepant, a second-generation gepant, has shown efficacy in several clinical trials in treating acute migraine. Ongoing trials are also evaluating its role in migraine prophylaxis, and results are promising. It is also generally safer for use than existing options, does not appear to increase the chance of developing chronic migraines, and carries a very tolerable side effects profile. It is a part of a growing arsenal in migraine treatment, and may present the silver bullet for treatment of this disease.

Lasmiditan for Patients with Migraine and Contraindications to Triptans: A Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

As 5-HT1B receptor agonists, triptans produce vasoconstriction and have cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, has a low affinity for 5-HT1B receptors, does not cause vasoconstriction, and is free of cardiovascular contraindications and precautions. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients with and without at least one triptan contraindication.

METHODS

Patient subgroups, with and without triptan contraindications, were analyzed from pooled patient data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, and MONONOFU). Patients experiencing a single migraine attack of moderate or severe intensity were treated with lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN and MONONOFU only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo, and efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary.

RESULTS

Of 5704 patients, 207 (3.6%) patients had at least one contraindication to triptans. Overall subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of lasmiditan on pain freedom, pain relief, freedom from most bothersome symptom, disability freedom, and Patient Global Impression of Change at 2 h post-dose did not differ in patient groups with and without triptan contraindications. These outcomes generally showed a similar benefit pattern for lasmiditan in both subgroups, with all results being statistically significant in patients without contraindications, and pain relief being statistically significant in patients with contraindications. The safety and tolerability profiles of patients with triptan versus without triptan contraindications were similar, including dizziness in 18.3 to 22.8% and somnolence in 7.9 to 9.9% of patients at the highest dose of lasmiditan.

CONCLUSIONS

In pooled analyses from four trials, patients with and without triptan contraindications did not differ in their patterns of lasmiditan efficacy. Lasmiditan may be a treatment option in patients with contraindications to triptans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

SAMURAI, NCT:02439320; SPARTAN, NCT:02605174; CENTURION, NCT:03670810; and MONONOFU, NCT:03962738.

Drug Safety in Episodic Migraine Management in Adults Part 1: Acute Treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to aid in choosing safe options when assessing potential risks of acute migraine treatments based on known mechanisms of action and anticipated safety concerns.

RECENT FINDINGS

Part 1 highlights safety issues associated with commonly used medications to treat acute migraine attacks. Strategies to mitigate cardiovascular and gastrointestinal risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, evaluation of cardiovascular risks of triptan and ergot alkaloids, and precautions with use of antiemetics and the novel drugs gepants and ditans are discussed to help practitioners in clinical decision-making. When available, we included recommendations from professional societies and data from pharmacovigilance systems. While guidelines on efficacy are available, one must also consider the possible risks and adverse effects of a drug when creating treatment plans.

Treatment of migraine with monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

: In the few last years, a new family of drugs, anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), has been developed for migraine therapy. Anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective, but the current limited experience with their use and their high-cost warrant establishing certain rules of use.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides an overview of the management of migraine patients, especially those who are undergoing treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to new research focused on the pathophysiology of migraine, and the discovery that CGRP plays a key role in its etiopathogenesis, new drugs targeting CGRP have been developed. These drugs have led to a paradigm shift, anticipating new and stimulating possibilities in migraine treatment. While physicians and patients are full of expectation about the advantages of this new family of drugs, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to make the best use of them. It is essential to form multidisciplinary teams that can identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, conducting cost-effective treatments. The follow-up of these therapies in the coming years is paramount due to the lack of experience in the management of these drugs and the peculiarity of disease evolution in migraine patients.

Triptans and vascular comorbidity in persons over fifty: Findings from a nationwide insurance database – A cohort study

Objective

To gather information about prescription of triptans and to evaluate whether vascular comorbidity differs in users and nonusers of triptans over the age of 50 years.

Background

Beyond the age of 50 years, migraine is still common—yet the incidence of vascular disorders increases. Triptans, medications for treating migraine attacks, are vasoconstrictive drugs and contraindicated in persons with vascular disorders.

Methods

Based on a nationwide insurance database from 2011, we compared the prescription of vascular drugs (identified by Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical codes), vascular diagnoses and hospitalizations, between triptan users greater than 50 years and a matched control group.

Results

Of the 3,116,000 persons over 50 years, 13,833 (0.44%) had at least one triptan prescription; 11,202 (81%) were women. Thirty percent of the triptan users (13,833/47,336 persons) were over 50 years. Of those over 50 years, 6832 (49.4%) had at least one vascular drug and 870 (6.3%) had at least one inpatient vascular diagnosis; 15.7% (2166 of 13,833 users) overused triptans. We compared triptan‐users to 41,400 nonusers, using a 1:3 match. In triptan‐users, prescriptions of cardiac therapies and beta blockers were significantly more common (odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24–1.47 and OR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.14–1.25, respectively); whereas prescriptions of calcium channel blockers and renin/angiotensin inhibitors were significantly less common (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.76–0.88 and OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.72–0.79, respectively). The prescriptions of antihypertensive, diuretic, and antilipidemic drugs as well as platelet inhibitors and direct thrombin inhibitors did not differ in users and nonusers. Triptan users had significantly more hospital stays (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.33–1.45); however, the number of days spent in the hospital and more importantly the frequency of inpatient vascular diagnoses did not differ statistically significantly between the two groups.

Conclusion

In persons over 50 years of age, a prescription of triptans is common. Vascular comorbidity is comparable in users and nonusers of triptans showing that triptans are prescribed despite vascular comorbidity and suggesting that triptan use does not increase vascular risk in patients with migraine over the age of 50 years. Nevertheless, regular evaluation for contraindications against triptans and for vascular risk factors is recommended in this age group.

Safety and tolerability of fremanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine: a pooled analysis of phase 3 studies

Background

Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide, has demonstrated efficacy for preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine. Since calcitonin gene-related peptide is expressed within the cardio- and cerebrovascular system and may have cardioprotective effects, it is critical to understand the cardio- and cerebrovascular safety of fremanezumab.

Methods

This was a pooled analysis of three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, 12-week trials in which patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine received quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or placebo. Incidences of overall and serious adverse events were analyzed. Cardio- and cerebrovascular adverse events (CVAEs) were analyzed in subgroups stratified by cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs), and use of cardio- and cerebrovascular medications or triptans.

Results

Two thousand, eight hundred and forty-two patients were included in the study. Overall (58–65%) and serious adverse events (<1–2%) occurred in similar proportions across fremanezumab and placebo groups. CVAEs were infrequent, regardless of cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history (2–6%). CVAEs occurred in low, similar proportions of patients with CVRFs and those using cardio- and cerebrovascular medications or triptans. No cardio- and cerebrovascular signals were identified.

Conclusion

Fremanezumab demonstrated a favorable overall and cardio- and cerebrovascular safety profile in more than 2800 patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine, regardless of cardio- and cerebrovascular medical history, CVRFs, or medication use.

Trial Registrations: NCT02629861 (HALO EM, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02629861), NCT02621931 (HALO CM, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02621931), NCT03308968 (FOCUS, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/NCT03308968)

New Generation Gepants: Migraine Acute and Preventive Medications

Migraine is a debilitating disease whose clinical and social impact is out of debate. Tolerability issues, interactions, contraindications, and inefficacy of the available medications make new options necessary. The calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway has shown its importance in migraine pathophysiology and specific medications targeting this have become available. The first-generation CGRP receptor antagonists or gepants, have undergone clinical trials but their development was stopped because of hepatotoxicity. The new generation of gepants, however, are efficacious, safe, and well tolerated as per recent clinical trials. This led to the FDA-approval of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and atogepant. The clinical trials of the available gepants and some of the newer CGRP-antagonists are reviewed in this article.

Migraine

Migraine is a common, chronic, disorder that is typically characterized by recurrent disabling attacks of headache and accompanying symptoms, including aura. The aetiology is multifactorial with rare monogenic variants. Depression, epilepsy, stroke and myocardial infarction are comorbid diseases. Spreading depolarization probably causes aura and possibly also triggers trigeminal sensory activation, the underlying mechanism for the headache. Despite earlier beliefs, vasodilation is only a secondary phenomenon and vasoconstriction is not essential for antimigraine efficacy. Management includes analgesics or NSAIDs for mild attacks, and, for moderate or severe attacks, triptans or 5HT_1B/1D receptor agonists. Because of cardiovascular safety concerns, unreliable efficacy and tolerability issues, use of ergots to abort attacks has nearly vanished in most countries. CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) and lasmiditan, a selective 5HT1_F receptor agonist, have emerged as effective acute treatments. Intramuscular onabotulinumtoxinA may be helpful in chronic migraine (migraine on ≥15 days per month) and monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP or its receptor, as well as two gepants, have proven effective and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Several neuromodulation modalities have been approved for acute and/or preventive migraine treatment. The emergence of new treatment targets and therapies illustrates the bright future for migraine management.

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.

Cardiovascular outcomes in adults with migraine treated with eptinezumab for migraine prevention: pooled data from four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

Background

Patients with migraine have an increased relative risk of cardio- and cerebrovascular events, and some migraine treatments may exacerbate this risk. The primary objective of this analysis was to determine whether the rate of cardiovascular adverse events was higher for patients with migraine treated with the migraine-preventive eptinezumab, compared with patients receiving placebo.

Methods

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients with migraine were pooled across four clinical trials (phase 1b, phase 2, and two phase 3 trials) for use of eptinezumab as a preventive migraine treatment for up to 1 year. In all studies, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) that occurred after the first dose of study treatment (eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, 1000 mg, or placebo) and vital signs were recorded through study completion.

Results

Cardiovascular TEAEs were rare across all four clinical trials, and rates were similar between patients receiving eptinezumab and those receiving placebo. Cardiovascular TEAEs that did occur were mild or moderate in severity; there were no serious adverse events as per FDA definition. Vital signs (systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate) were not meaningfully different across treatment groups over the course of 56 weeks, compared to placebo. Treatment with eptinezumab did not result in significant new or changed cardiovascular medications used concomitantly compared to placebo.

Conclusions

In this post hoc analysis of four clinical trials for eptinezumab, doses of 100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg (more than 3 times the highest approved dose) were not associated with clinically relevant changes in vital signs or significant changes in concomitant cardiovascular medication usage, and had low incidences of cardiovascular TEAEs, comparable to placebo.

Trial registration

NCT01772524 (Study 2), 01/21/2013; NCT02275117 (Study 5), 10/27/2014; NCT02559895 (PROMISE-1), 09/25/2017; NCT02974153 (PROMISE-2), 11/28/2016

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01360-1.

An Update on Diagnosis and Pharmacologic Therapy for Headache in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice

Headaches are synonymous with neurovascular pain (cephalalgias), which comprise a heterogeneous group of pain disorders that share a common anatomic region (head and neck). Headaches are often a "universal" disease presentation that is evaluated by the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Pharmacologic therapy of headaches is most often based on the severity of symptoms and the degree of disability experienced by the patient. This article describes the epidemiology of neurovascular headaches, their pathophysiologic mechanisms/presentation, the workup of patients, and an up-to-date overview of pharmacologic approaches that can be applied in the oral and maxillofacial surgical practice to treat this patient population.

Migraine review for general practice

Migraine continues second among the world's causes of disability. Diagnosis is based on the history and clinical examination and imaging is usually not necessary. Migraine can be subdivided depending on whether there is an aura or not and based on the frequency of the headaches. The number of headache days determines whether the patient has episodic migraine or chronic migraine. Treating migraines can be done to treatment the migraine itself and to prevent its appearance. In this review we approach the migraine from a practical point of view with updated information.

Efficacy and Safety of Lasmiditan for Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Monotherapy with triptans in acute migraine is ineffective in many patients and contraindicated in certain cardiovascular diseases where alternative therapeutic options are necessary to explore. This meta-analysis has evaluated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for the treatment of acute migraine in adults. After performing a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted data from 4 relevant articles. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. A random-effects model was used to estimate effect size. Quality assessment was done using the risk of bias assessment tool and meta-regression for probable variables affecting effect size. Subgroup analysis was done depending on the dose of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan use was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with pain freedom (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-2.39; P < .00001), sustained pain freedom (OR, 1.93; 95%CI, 1.55-2.39; P <.00001), headache response (OR, 2.05; 95%CI, 1.77-2.36; P < .00001), clinical disability level (OR, 1.36; 95%CI, 1.20-1.55; P < .00001), patients' global impression (OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.69-2.10; P < .00001), and significantly lower use of rescue medication (OR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.38-0.63; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Lasmiditan use was also associated with a higher likelihood of adverse effects like dizziness (OR, 6.54; 95%CI, 4.24-10.07; P < .00001), paresthesia (OR, 4.28; 95%CI, 2.97-6.17; P < .00001), and fatigue (OR, 5.67; 95%CI, 3.78-8.52; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a dose-dependent effect of lasmiditan on pain freedom, sustained pain freedom, patient's global impression, and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Prediction probability for effect estimate favoring placebo was calculated to be 0.0017%. Lasmiditan has shown a favorable effect in terms of efficacy and safety in the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in comparison to placebo. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and use in specific subgroups of patients. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020177838.

Naratriptan is as effective as sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks when used properly. A mini-review

BACKGROUND

Naratriptan, marketed in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, is generally regarded as a less-effective triptan with a slower onset of action than most other triptans in the treatment of migraine attacks. In this review, naratriptan will be compared with sumatriptan, the standard triptan.

METHODS

Papers on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics and results from comparative clinical trials with oral and subcutaneous naratriptan versus other triptans were retrieved from PubMed.

RESULTS

Naratriptan and sumatriptan have similar effects in relevant animal models. In a randomized controlled trial, oral naratriptan 2.5 mg is less effective than oral sumatriptan 100 mg after both 2 h and 4 h. In contrast, oral naratriptan 10 mg has a similar time-effect curve as oral sumatriptan 100 mg, in both its steepness and the efficacy at 2 h and 4 h. Subcutaneous naratriptan 10 mg (88% pain free at 2 h) was in one trial superior to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg (55% pain free at 2 h).

CONCLUSION

Naratriptan was marketed for the treatment of migraine attacks as the "gentle triptan" in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, a dose with no more adverse events than placebo. This low dose results in the slow onset of action and low efficacy of oral naratriptan, but in high doses oral naratriptan is similar to oral sumatriptan. Based on one randomized controlled trial, subcutaneous naratriptan has probably the greatest effect of any triptan.

Patients and general practitioners assessment of the main outcomes employed in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: a cross sectional study

Background

We aim to describe and compare patients and general practitioners’ opinions about the different variables related to acute and preventive treatment for migraine.

Patients and methods

An observational descriptive study was performed. Patients with episodic migraine and general practitioners, from our healthcare area, were invited to answer a survey about the different variables related to migraine treatment. They were asked for their opinions on the different variables, and to consider the desired efficacy in percentage terms and the desired action times of treatment.

Results

Fifty-five patients and fifty-five general practitioners were selected. Effectiveness was considered the most important variable for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Cost was considered the least important variable. Patients desired percentage of efficacy was 84.0% (±16.7%) for symptomatic treatment and 79.9% (±17.1%) for preventive treatment. General practitioners desired percentage of efficacy was 75.0% (±14.0) for symptomatic treatment and 70.4% (±14.3) for preventive treatment. For symptomatic treatment the desired action time for pain cessation was selected as 27.5 min (±13.8) for patients and 24.0 min (±18.3) for GPs. For preventive treatment the desired action time for effect was 7.1 days (±4.5) for patients and 13.9 days (±8.9) for general practitioners.

Conclusion

The most important endpoints were, for acute: effectiveness, a short action time and a persistent effect. For prophylactic: effectiveness, sustained effect and tolerability. Both patients and general practitioners agreed on the most and least preferred endpoints. Desired percentage of efficacy was above 75% for both symptomatic and preventive treatment; and the desired action time was below 30 min for acute treatment and 2 weeks for preventive treatment.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Acute Migraine Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is a disabling disease of attacks of moderate to severe pain with associated symptoms. Every person with migraine requires treatment for acute attacks. Treatments can range from behavioral management and nonspecific medications to migraine-specific medications and neuromodulation. For many with migraine, having a combination of tools allows for effective treatment of all types of attacks.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past several years, four neuromodulation devices have been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of acute migraine, and three medications with novel mechanisms of action have been FDA approved. They add to the arsenal available to people with migraine and focus on migraine-specific pathways to allow for precise care with fewer side effects.

SUMMARY

This article discusses acute migraine therapy, focusing on best-level evidence.

Novel Therapies in Acute Migraine Management: Small-Molecule Calcitonin Gene-Receptor Antagonists and Serotonin 1F Receptor Agonist

OBJECTIVE

To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents-ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant-representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura.

DATA SOURCES

The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative.

DATA SYNTHESIS

CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan's adverse effect profile may limit its use.

Drug interactions and risks associated with the use of triptans, ditans and monoclonal antibodies in migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this study was to review current evidence concerning potential risks and interactions associated with concomitant use of drugs indicated for the abortive treatment of migraine, namely triptans and ditans, and more recently developed drugs used for the preventive treatment. The latter drug class encompasses monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), which target either calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, no pharmacokinetic interactions between these drug classes have been reported. However, patients who suffer from triptan- (or ditan-) induced medication overuse headache or those who are nonresponders to triptans might respond less effectively to mAbs. Caution is warranted when coadministrating these drugs in migraine patients with comorbid cardiovascular disease or with an increased cardiovascular risk profile.

SUMMARY

In this review, the main mechanisms of action of triptans, ditans and mAbs targeting CGRP or its receptor are summarized as well as the current evidence on their individual risks. Studies on risks and interactions in case of concomitant use of triptans, ditans and mAbs in migraine patients are relatively scarce. Therefore, these aspects have been considered from a theoretical and hypothetical point of view by taking both their overlapping target, CGRP, and contraindications into account.

Optimal Dosing of Lasmiditan in the Management of Acute Migraine Attack: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

The current target of migraine treatment is focused on Triptans. Lasmiditan, a non-vasoconstrictive and highly selective 5HT_1F receptor agonist is a novel therapeutic discovery for migraine for patients with cardiovascular (CV) risk factors or stable cardiovascular diseases and who fail to respond to the existing treatment.

Objective

To identify an optimal dosing of Lasmiditan 100 mg versus 200 mg for the treatment of acute migraine attacks in adult patients with cardiovascular risk factors.

Methods

Systematic searches were run in databases such as Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, Google scholar, and PUBMED. Out of 83 study records identified, two studies were included for quantitative analysis.

Results

There was a significant headache pain freedom at 2 h [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.77; 95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.92] and sustained pain freedom at 24 h (OR): 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.93] in patients taking Lasmiditan 200 mg compared to those taking Lasmiditan 100 mg. The results were statistically insignificant for parameters like most bothersome symptoms (MBS) free at 2 h, headache relief at 2 h, disability level at 2 h, and global impression of change at 2 h. A combined analysis of these parameters showed a remarkable difference between both the groups favoring Lasmiditan 200 mg [OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.95].

Conclusion

An oral dosing of Lasmiditan 200 mg is ideal for the treatment of acute migraine in adult patients with CV risk factors for attaining headache pain freedom at 2 h and sustained pain freedom at 24 compared to Lasmiditan 100 mg.

Time course of efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications

BACKGROUND

The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated.

METHODS

ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Participants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC90 for nearly 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709).

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist ubrogepant for the treatment of acute migraine: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist ubrogepant for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ubrogepant for treatment of acute migraine were identified in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from database establishment to June 2020; we also searched ClinicalTrials.gov manually during the same period. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on each outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 5 RCTs involving 4903 patients were included; there were 3358 cases in the ubrogepant group and 1545 cases in the placebo group. The meta-analysis showed the following results: at 2 hours postdose, the percentages of participants reporting pain relief and the absence of photophobia, nausea, and phonophobia were significantly higher in the ubrogepant group than in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, 95%CI: 1.48-1.97, P < .00001; OR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.22-1.45, P < .00001; OR = 1.07, 95%CI: 1.03-1.11, P = .0006; OR = 1.21, 95%CI: 1.14-1.28, P < .00001). The incidence of common adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Ubrogepant is effective and safe for the treatment of acute migraine.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42019145286.

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.

Subcutaneous sumatriptan: association with decreases in postoperative pain and opioid use after elective cranial surgery

OBJECTIVE

Sumatriptan, a serotonin receptor agonist, has been used in the management of primary headache disorders and has been shown to affect trigeminal dural afferents. There is limited literature on the safety and efficacy of sumatriptan for postcraniotomy pain management. This study aimed to identify whether subcutaneous sumatriptan is a safe and efficacious pain management strategy after elective craniotomy.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent supratentorial or suboccipital craniotomy between 2016 and 2019 that was performed by a single provider at a single institution to identify patients given subcutaneous sumatriptan in the postoperative period. Pain scores and intravenous and oral opioid use were compared in patients with (n = 15) and without (n = 45) sumatriptan administration.

RESULTS

Patients with and without sumatriptan administration had no significant differences in baseline characteristics or surgery type. There were no sumatriptan-related complications. The average pain score decreased from 3.9 to 1.3 within 1 hour after sumatriptan administration (p = 0.014). In both adult and pediatric patients there was decreased postoperative pain (adults: pain score of 1.1 vs 7.1, p < 0.001; pediatric: 1.1 vs 3.9, p = 0.007) within the first 48 hours. There were decreases in intravenous opioid use, length of intravenous opioid use, maximum dose of intravenous opioid used, oral opioid use, length of oral opioid use, and maximum dose of oral opioid used in both adult and pediatric patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors identified subcutaneous sumatriptan as a safe and efficacious tool for postoperative pain management after craniotomy. Large multicenter randomized controlled studies are needed to further evaluate the specific role of sumatriptan in postoperative pain management after craniotomy.

Gepants, calcitonin-gene-related peptide receptor antagonists: what could be their role in migraine treatment?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is the second leading cause of years lived with disability after back pain. Poor tolerability, contraindications, drug-drug interactions and efficacy limited to a subpopulation make new approaches necessary for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. The study of the calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway over the last decades is a good example of translational medicine leading to directed therapies for patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

After some of the first-generation CGRP receptor antagonists, gepants, were not fully developed because of hepatotoxicity, the second generation of gepants have shown efficacy, safety and tolerability in recent clinical trials.

SUMMARY

Both rimegepant and ubrogepant have published positive randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials data. Vazegepant is the first intranasal gepant for the acute treatment of migraine and has announced a positive phase II/III study. Daily rimegepant use has preliminary data to suggest efficacy. Atogepant has shown efficacy in migraine prevention in a phase II/III study. Most importantly, hepatotoxicity has not been reported in specifically designed phase I studies or long-term extension studies, with rimegepant or ubrogepant, or in a preventive study with atogepant. Given the preventive effect, it seems likely that gepants will not lead to medication overuse headache. They will likely have no cardiovascular warnings. Because of the particular benefit gepants may represent for these groups of patients, specific studies in patients with medication overuse headache, as well as those with comorbid cardiovascular diseases, would be of considerable interest.

Novel synthetic treatment options for migraine

Introduction: Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders. Nowadays, the 5-HT_1B/1D receptor agonists, namely triptans, are considered as the standard of care for migraine acute treatment. However, triptans have limitations in some patients, such as incomplete pain relief, headache recurrence, and cardiovascular contraindications. New 5-HT_1F receptor agonists, namely ditans, and calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, namely gepants, have been developed as migraine-specific treatments.Areas covered: This paper reviews the available data from RCTs to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine and atogepant for the prevention of migraine.Expert opinion: Available data suggest that lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant might not have a clinical efficacy similar to triptans. Lasmiditan did not cause the typical triptan side effects but was associated with central nervous system side effects, causing temporary driving impairment. On the contrary, the new generation of gepants showed a placebo-like tolerability profile and the absence of a specific pattern of side effects. Future studies on lasmiditan and gepants with respect to established effective comparators are mandatory to support phase III results and to help clinicians to balance the benefit/risk profiles of the various acute and preventive medications.