Combining two CGRP inhibitors to treat migraine

Safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in participants taking atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: Results from the TANDEM study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine in participants taking atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM).

BACKGROUND

Atogepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults and ubrogepant is an oral CGRP receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine in adults, with or without aura. The safety and tolerability of the concomitant use of ubrogepant and atogepant have not been previously evaluated in a clinical setting.

METHODS

The TANDEM study, a phase 4, two-period, multicenter, open-label study conducted in the United States, enrolled adults with migraine, with or without aura, and <15 headache days/month. In Treatment Period 1, participants took atogepant 60 mg once daily (QD) for 12 weeks and their own non-gepant acute headache medication for breakthrough migraine attacks. In Treatment Period 2, participants continued taking atogepant 60 mg QD and ubrogepant 100 mg was taken as needed (PRN) for the treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks (up to eight per 4-week interval) for 12 weeks. In Treatment Period 2, an optional second ubrogepant dose or the participant's own acute medication could be used to rescue headaches that did not resolve within 2-24 h post initial ubrogepant dose. The primary objective evaluated the safety and tolerability of the concomitant use of ubrogepant and atogepant.

RESULTS

Of 263 participants enrolled, 262 were treated in Treatment Period 1 (Safety Population 1) and 218 continued and were treated in Treatment Period 2 (Safety Population 2). The mean (standard deviation) number of ubrogepant use days in Treatment Period 2 was 6.6 (5.03) over the 12 weeks. In Treatment Periods 1 and 2, 49.6% and 43.1% of participants experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), respectively. The most common TEAEs (≥5%) in Treatment Period 1 and Treatment Period 2 were COVID-19 (8.4%, 3.2%), fatigue (6.5%, 1.4%), nausea (6.1%, 0.9%), decreased appetite (5.7%, 0.9%), and constipation (5.3%, 0.9%). In Treatment Period 2, no increase in the incidence and types of TEAEs in relation to the number of ubrogepant use days or doses taken were identified. During the whole treatment period, 9.9% of participants discontinued atogepant or ubrogepant treatment due to TEAEs. There was one serious TEAE in Treatment Period 1 (ureterolithiasis) and one in Treatment Period 2 (cervical myelopathy), and both were considered not related to study treatment by the study investigators.

CONCLUSION

The use of atogepant 60 mg QD for the preventive treatment of EM and ubrogepant 100 mg PRN for the acute treatment of migraine over the 12-week open-label concomitant use treatment period was safe and well tolerated. The overall safety results were consistent with the known safety profiles of atogepant and ubrogepant when used alone and no new safety signals were identified.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Anti-Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine: Focus on Drug Interactions

Calcitonin gene-related peptide neurotransmission was the target for recent development of monoclonal antibodies that effectively prevent attacks of both episodic and chronic migraine. The aim of this narrative review was to offer deeper insight into drug-drug, drug-food and drug-disease interactions of monoclonal antibodies approved for prevention of migraine attacks. For this narrative review, relevant literature was searched for in MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases, covering the 1966-2023 and 2006-2023 periods, respectively. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was also searched for relevant clinical studies whose results had not been published previously in medical journals, covering 2000-2023. Monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab) augment prophylactic action of gepants and onabotulinumtoxin A and somewhat increase efficacy of triptans used to abort migraine attacks; however, their adverse reactions may also be augmented. Pharmacokinetic interactions and interactions in general with drugs used for other indications except migraine are negligible, as are drug-food interactions. However, monoclonal antibodies may worsen diseases with already weakened CGRP neurotransmission, Raynaud phenomenon and constipation. Monoclonal antibodies used for prevention of migraine do not engage in significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs; however, they do engage in pharmacodynamic interactions with other anti-migraine drugs, additively augmenting their prophylactic action, but also increasing frequency and severity of adverse reactions, which are a consequence of the CGRP neurotransmission interruption.

Pharmacological management of migraine: current strategies and future directions

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Safety and Tolerability of Combining CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies with Gepants in Patients with Migraine: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of clacitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has revolutionized the treatment of migraines. In clinical practice gepants might be considered as a valid option to treat acute attacks in patients with migraine who are treated with mAbs. However, the safety and tolerability of such a combination is not well addressed in the real-world setting. We designed this study to evaluate the safety and tolerability of combining CGRP mAbs with gepants in the management of migraines.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, real-world, exploratory study. The participants included within the study were adult (≥ 18 years) patients diagnosed with migraine. Screening for patients who were treated with at least one GCRP mAbs was done. Data was collected from one site, the American Center for Psychiatry and Neurology, Abu Dhabi UAE. A total of 516 patients taking CGRP mAbs were identified. Extracted data from patients' electronic medical records included patient demographics, migraine characteristics, prescribed treatments, and adverse events (AEs). The tolerability and safety of the combination therapy was evaluated on the basis of documented AEs.

RESULTS

Among the identified 516 patients, 234 were administered gepants in addition to the CRGP mAb (215, rimegepant; 19, ubrogepant). Eleven of the 234 patients switched from rimegepant to urogepant as a result of lack of efficacy; one patient switched from urogepant to zolmitriptan because of the lack of insurance coverage of the former medication. Among all the patients included in this study, three AEs were documented. These AEs were generally mild and transient and hence did not lead to discontinuation of treatment. Moreover, 42 of the 234 (17.9%) patients were switched from one class of CGRP mAbs to another at least once while continuing treatment with the assigned gepants.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study demonstrate that combining CGRP mAbs with gepants is a safe and well-tolerated treatment approach for migraine. Future studies are warranted to further validate these findings and explore long-term outcomes.

Treatment patterns for patients initiating novel acute migraine specific medications (nAMSMs) in the context of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway

BACKGROUND

New acute and preventive migraine medications are available, but data on current treatment patterns are limited. This study describes migraine treatment patterns among patients initiating novel acute migraine specific medications (nAMSMs), overall and by prior use of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study using IQVIA open-source pharmacy and medical claims data, we identified patients with ≥ 1 claim for a nAMSM (ubrogepant, rimegepant, lasmiditan) between 01/01/2020 and 09/30/2020 (index period). Patients were indexed on their first nAMSM claim and stratified into 2 cohorts: patients with prior mAb use (≥ 1 claim for erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab in the 6-month pre-index period) or patients without prior mAb use. Treatment patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period.

RESULTS

Overall, 78,574 patients were identified (63% indexed on ubrogepant, 34% on rimegepant, and 3% on lasmiditan) with 26,656 patients (34%) having had prior mAb use. In the pre-index period, 79% of patients used non-mAb preventive medications and 75% of patients used acute medications. Following the index nAMSM claim, 65% of patients had ≥ 1 refill and 21% had ≥ 4 refills of their index nAMSM; 10% of patients switched to another nAMSM. Post-index mAb use was observed in 82% of patients with a prior mAb and 15% of patients without. Among patients with pre- and post-index use of acute medications, 38% discontinued ≥ 1 acute medication class in the post-index period. Among patients with concomitant use of traditional preventive medications at index, 30% discontinued ≥ 1 concomitant preventive anti-migraine medication in the post-index period.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients initiating nAMSMs had prior treatment with acute and preventive medications. Approximately one-third of patients had prior treatment with anti-CGRP pathway mAbs. After starting nAMSMs, more than one-third of patients discontinued at least one traditional acute medication and one-third of patients discontinued at least one traditional preventive medication. Despite nAMSM initiation, most patients with prior anti-CGRP pathway mAb use continued mAb use. Around 15% of patients without a prior mAb newly started a mAb. These results provide insight into how nAMSMs and mAbs have been integrated into clinical management of migraine in the real-world.

Calcitonin gene relating peptide inhibitors in combination for migraine treatment: A mini-review

The discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its role in migraine pathophysiology has led to advances in the treatment of migraine. Since 2018, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved four monoclonal antibody (mab) therapies targeting either the CGRP ligand or receptor and 3 oral small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists. These targeted therapies have been shown to be safe and effective for either preventive or acute treatment of migraine in adults. Given their efficacy and tolerability profile, CGRP inhibitors have revolutionized the approach to migraine treatment. Theoretically, combining therapies within this therapeutic class could lead to more CGRP blockade and, subsequently, improved patient outcomes. There are providers currently combining CGRP therapies in clinical practice. However, limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of this practice. This mini-review provides a summary of available data and poses important considerations when combining CGRP therapies for migraine treatment.