Head-to-head relief: ubrogepant, rimegepant, and zavegepant in migraine treatment

Migraine, a significant cause of disability worldwide, heavily impacts daily functioning and quality of life. Despite various acute treatment options, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and triptans, patients experience limited relief or adverse effects. This review examines the efficacy and safety of gepants - ubrogepant, rimegepant, and zavegepant - in the acute treatment of migraine. We assessed phase II and III clinical trials, focusing on clinically relevant endpoints such as pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at two hours post-treatment. We calculated the number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve significant endpoints for each gepant. Gepants are recommended for the acute treatment of migraine in individuals who do not respond to triptan monotherapy or combination therapy, who experience only partial effectiveness, or who cannot tolerate or have contraindications to triptans. The NNT values for achieving pain freedom at two hours were 9 for rimegepant, 11 for zavegepant, and 12 for ubrogepant, which are comparable to NSAIDs such as naproxen (NNT = 11). Paracetamol, although not an NSAID, showed similar efficacy (NNT = 12). Triptans demonstrated lower NNTs, indicating higher efficacy. Gepants offer effective, well-tolerated alternatives with no significant cardiovascular risk and minimal potential for medication-overuse headache.

Evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine

We here present evidence-based guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of migraine. These guidelines, created by the Italian Society for the Study of Headache and the International Headache Society, aim to offer clear, actionable recommendations to healthcare professionals. They incorporate evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials and expert-based opinions. The guidelines follow the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the quality of evidence. The guideline development involved a systematic review of literature across multiple databases, adherence to Cochrane review methods, and a structured framework for data extraction and interpretation. Although the guidelines provide a robust foundation for migraine treatment, they also highlight gaps in current research, such as the paucity of head-to-head drug comparisons and the need for long-term outcome studies. These guidelines serve as a resource to standardize migraine treatment and promote high-quality care across different healthcare settings.

The efficacy and safety of zavegepant nasal inhalation versus oral calcitonin-gene related peptide receptor antagonists in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The latest randomized controlled trial (RCT) revealed that zavegepant, a new nasal inhalation calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, has a clear efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. However, whether the efficacy of this new nasal inhalation drug is better than other oral CGRP receptor antagonists remained to be confirmed. Therefore, we designed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide a reference for the clinical application of zavegepant.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 1, 2024. RCTs using CGRP receptor antagonists (excluding non-randomized, non-English or no extractable data trials) to treat adult patients suffering from acute migraine were included. STATA 18.0 and R STUDIO were used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 15 randomized clinical trials with 11,179 patients were included. Compared with the placebo, zavegepant 10 mg demonstrated a significantly higher efficiency for pain freedom at 2 h (relative risk (RR) = 1.54, 95% CI: 1.28-1.82, I2 = 0.0%, P < 0.001) and most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom at 2 h (RR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.13-1.42, I2 = 0.0%, P < 0.001), but did not show significant superiority over oral CGRP receptor antagonists. In terms of safety, zavegepant 10 mg was significantly inferior to placebo but not inferior to oral CGRP receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Zavegepant 10 mg can quickly relieve symptoms and has no significant difference in safety compared with oral drugs, which can provide rapid and safe efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. However, compared with other oral CGRP receptor antagonists, zavegepant 10 mg by nasal inhalation has no obvious advantage in long-term symptom relief rate.

Efficacy of ubrogepant and atogepant in males and females with migraine: A secondary analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Published evidence supporting efficacy of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists as acute migraine treatments in males is limited.

METHODS

To fill the gap, we present male and female data from four ubrogepant and four atogepant randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. Acute outcomes included 2-h pain freedom and absence of most bothersome symptom (co-primary; headache-phase randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials); absence of moderate-to-severe headache within 24 h (primary; prodrome randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial). Preventive outcome included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across 12 weeks (primary).

RESULTS

Pooled data from phase 3 headache-phase ubrogepant randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials showed similar rates of pain freedom (19.4% vs 21.1%) and absence of most bothersome symptom (35.1% vs 39.0%) 2 h post-dose between males and females, respectively. Time course of pain freedom and absence of most bothersome symptom over 48 h was similar between male and female subgroups. Comparable reductions in mean monthly migraine days across 12-week treatment periods were found between males and females treated with atogepant 60 mg once-daily in pooled episodic migraine and chronic migraine randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.

CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION

In ubrogepant and atogepant randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, although analysis power for males is limited due to small sample sizes, evidence supports similar treatment effects in males and females with migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02828020; NCT02867709; NCT04492020; NCT01613248; NCT02848326; NCT03777059; NCT04740827; NCT03855137.

Efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

Introduction: The efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily for migraine remained controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg daily on treatment in migraine patients.Methods: We have searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, Cochrane library databases and SCOPUS through 21 March 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ubrogepant 50 mg versus 100 mg on treatment efficacy in migraine patients. This meta-analysis was performed using the random-effect model.Results: Three RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with ubrogepant 100 mg in migraine patients, ubrogepant 50 mg obtained comparable pain freedom at 2 h (OR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64-1.15; p = 0.310), sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (OR = 0.76; 95% CI = 0.54-1.07; p = 0.110), photophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.63-1.02; p = 0.070), phonophobia absence at 2 h (OR = 1.07; 95% CI = 0.82-1.40; p = 0.620) and nausea absence at 2 h (OR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.79-1.32; p = 0.880). In terms of safety, adverse events were found to be increased in ubrogepant 100 mg as compared to ubrogepant 50 mg (OR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.67-0.99; p = 0.040), and there was no statistical difference of serious adverse events between two groups (OR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.40-1.91; p = 0.720).Conclusions: Ubrogepant 50 mg and 100 mg may be equally effective to alleviate migraine, but ubrogepant 100 mg led to increase incidence of adverse events.

Evaluating Ubrogepant-related adverse events using the FDA adverse event reporting system

BACKGROUND

Migraine has a high prevalence in the population and accounts for 12% of primary headaches. Ubrogepant is used for the treatment of acute migraine, and although some clinical trials have demonstrated the safety of Ubrogepant, its long-term safety in a large sample of the population remains to be investigated.

METHODS

We collected data from the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. We used reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR), the information component (IC) and the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) to evaluate Ubrogepant-induced adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

We screened out 2,067 reports of Ubrogepant as primary suspected (PS) and 6,190 reports of Ubrogepant-induced AEs as PS. Our results showed that Ubrogepant-induced AEs targeted 4 system organ classes (SOCs), detected 32 Preferred terms (PTs) signals in 9 SOCs, including common Ubrogepant label consistent with Migraine, Nausea, Somnolence, Paraesthesia oral and Dizziness, It also includes the AEs of Hemiparesis, Mental impairment, Dysstasia, Tinnitus, Chest pain, Cold sweat, Neck pain, etc. that have not been demonstrated in previous studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified new AEs that have not been reported, which provides a new guidance to deepen the comprehension of the safety of Ubrogepant.

Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab Versus Rimegepant for Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

There have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine.

METHODS

In this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months.

RESULTS

Of 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Safety and Efficacy of Calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Receptor Antagonists and Selective Serotonin Receptor Agonist in the Management of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (rimegepant, and ubrogepant), and selective serotonin receptor agonists (lasmiditan) in the management of migraine. However, the exact safety and efficacy profile of these drugs is unclear so far.

METHODS

The study's primary objective was to determine the exact safety and efficacy profile. The overall estimate was calculated in terms of risk ratios using a suitable model. The subgroup analysis was also performed to check the effect of individual drugs on the outcome, whereas sensitivity analysis was performed to check the effects of outliers on the outcome. All the analyses were performed using Rev Man 5. The drugs have shown significant improvement in efficacy parameters (pain freedom, most bothersome symptoms, phonophobia, nausea, and photophobia).

RESULTS

The subgroup analysis results have shown significant improvement in all efficacy parameters in the rimegepant and ubrogepant groups. The effect of ubrogepant on safety parameters was found to be non-significant, indicating a better safety profile of ubrogepant than lasmiditan.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity analysis results have shown no effect of outliers on the efficacy parameters. Based on the available evidence, recently approved drugs are effective in the treatment of migraine, however, associated with few adverse drug reactions.

Ubrogepant: Mechanism of action, clinical and translational science

In recent years, the treatment of migraine has experienced a breakthrough in the development of drugs that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway. Monoclonal antibodies against the receptor or ligand have been developed for the preventive treatment of migraine; whereas, orally administered small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, called gepants, have been developed for both acute and/or preventive treatment. Both modalities have demonstrated safe and effective treatment of migraine, reducing the number of migraine days for patients as well as reducing symptoms and improving patient function and overall quality of life. Here, we provide an abridged review of ubrogepant, an oral CGRP receptor antagonist, approved for the acute treatment of migraine. We briefly summarize the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology, describing the mechanism of action of ubrogepant in the context of this pathway, the clinical pharmacology properties and the clinical development and outcomes, including safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics, that supported ubrogepant's approval.

A Comprehensive Review of the Mechanism, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ubrogepant in the Treatment of Migraine

Ubrogepant is an innovative medication designed for the acute treatment of migraine, a debilitating neurological condition that profoundly impairs quality of life, productivity, and social interactions. This comprehensive review assesses the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and mechanism of action of ubrogepant through a rigorous methodology, including an in-depth literature review from reputable databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. Classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, ubrogepant has emerged as a potential revolutionary medication for migraine treatment. CGRP is a peptide integral to migraine pathophysiology, and its blockade has demonstrated great therapeutic potential. Unlike triptans, known for their cardiovascular risks, ubrogepant lacks vasoconstrictive properties, making it a safer alternative for a broader patient population. Ubrogepant offers significant potential for pain relief, symptom reduction, and restoration of normal function during a migraine attack, and it outperforms placebo in terms of efficacy. It also presents favorable safety, with generally mild adverse drug events (ADEs), such as nausea, dizziness, and somnolence, similar to placebo effects. Consistent results from clinical trials confirm its tolerability, with minor ADEs and no safety alerts for the tested doses, indicating that ubrogepant is a safe and well-tolerated option for migraine treatment. As an effective oral medication, ubrogepant could be an alternative to traditional acute migraine treatments. Its benefits include a unique mechanism of action, rapid onset, and favorable safety profile. However, specific contraindications, such as hypersensitivity, severe hepatic impairment, concurrent use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and uncontrolled hypertension, require caution or avoidance of ubrogepant. Despite these limitations, ubrogepant signals a promising new direction in migraine therapeutics.

Evaluating therapeutic benefits of ubrogepant via latent class models: A post hoc exploratory analysis of the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an alternative method of defining acute treatment success in migraine by combining multiple indicators into a single dichotomous measure of success.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is characterized by a symptom complex; combining these features as a single endpoint may improve the measurement of treatment effects and better predict patient satisfaction with treatment.

METHODS

We used a confirmatory latent class model (LCM) with two latent classes interpreted as treatment success and treatment failure. Pooled data for placebo and ubrogepant 50 mg from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II trials and data for ubrogepant 100 mg from ACHIEVE I were used. LCM inputs included pre-dose and 2-h post-dose measures of pain severity (0-3), the presence/absence of associated symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia [0 or 1]), and functional disability (0-3). All definitions were validated against satisfaction with study medication (SWSM) at 24 h post-dose; results were compared with 2-hour pain freedom (2hPF).

RESULTS

This pooled analysis included 2247 participants. At 2 h post-dose in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, 53.2% (472/887) and 54.9% (246/448) of participants, respectively, were classified as achieving treatment success using the LCM-based approach, compared to 39.0% (356/912) of participants in the placebo group. The results for treatment success using the 2hPF endpoint were 20.7% (184/887) and 21.5% (96/447) in the ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg dose groups, respectively, compared to 12.7% (116/912) for placebo. Using 24-h SWSM as an external validator, the LCM approach sensitivity and correct classification rates were higher than for 2hPF.

CONCLUSION

The LCM approach led to higher rates of treatment success and greater separation between ubrogepant and placebo and was a more sensitive predictor of treatment satisfaction than the regulatory endpoint of 2hPF.

Pharmaceutical aspects of novel CGRP inhibitors used in the prophylaxis and treatment of migraine

Migraine is one of the most prevalent neurological disorders known to have an immense adverse socio-economic impact. Neurogenic inflammation is thought to mediate migraine, and CGRP is known to be released during acute attacks of migraine that causes vasodilation in extracerebral arteries. Hence, CGRP is believed to play a key role in triggering migraine. Although there are several classes of medications used in the prevention and treatment of migraine pain, targeted therapies are fewer. Therefore, CGRP receptor inhibitors which bind to CGRP receptors in the cranial vasculature have been developed as drugs for migraine therapy. In this review article, we describe the basic pathophysiologic mechanism that causes migraine headaches and the pharmacotherapeutic aspects of CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use. For the purpose of this review, a search was performed on the pharmacological, pharmacokinetic, pharmaceutical, and therapeutic aspects of the FDA-approved CGRP inhibitors viz. erenumab, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in UpToDate database and PubMed beginning year 2000. Based on the data collected, a risk-benefit comparison of different classes of novel CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use is provided. This comparative review may help the healthcare providers in choosing the best pharmacotherapeutic agent for their patients based on patient-specific information.

Update of Gepants in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite the unmet therapeutic needs of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and/or medication overuse, available treatment options are limited. Recently, four calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have been approved for the treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the preventive treatment of CM with gepants and highlights recent findings.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown promising results for rimegepant and atogepant as preventive treatments for CM. In an RCT targeting patients with CM, atogepant demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean monthly migraine days, irrespective of acute medication overuse. Moreover, the patients reported no significant safety concerns and exhibited good tolerance to treatment. These findings highlight the potential of gepants as a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with CM and/or medication overuse. Gepant use will help improve the management and quality of life of individuals with this debilitating condition.

Migraine: Advances in the Pathogenesis and Treatment

This article presents a comprehensive review on migraine, a prevalent neurological disorder characterized by chronic headaches, by focusing on their pathogenesis and treatment advances. By examining molecular markers and leveraging imaging techniques, the research identifies key mechanisms and triggers in migraine pathology, thereby improving our understanding of its pathophysiology. Special emphasis is given to the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine development. CGRP not only contributes to symptoms but also represents a promising therapeutic target, with inhibitors showing effectiveness in migraine management. The article further explores traditional medical treatments, scrutinizing the mechanisms, benefits, and limitations of commonly prescribed medications. This provides a segue into an analysis of emerging therapeutic strategies and their potential to enhance migraine management. Finally, the paper delves into neuromodulation as an innovative treatment modality. Clinical studies indicating its effectiveness in migraine management are reviewed, and the advantages and limitations of this technique are discussed. In summary, the article aims to enhance the understanding of migraine pathogenesis and present novel therapeutic possibilities that could revolutionize patient care.

Migraine and heart: A reality check

Migraine is a common neurological disorder affecting 12% of the global population. The common risk factors are adolescent age, genetics, and female sex, and are triggered by hormonal fluctuations, emotional stress, sensory overload, weather changes, alcohol consumption, fasting, cheese, chocolate, smoked fish, yeast extract, cured meats, artificial sweeteners, food preservatives containing nitrates and nitrites, and sleep disturbances. Migraine with aura is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, such as myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and cardiac arrhythmias, and has recently been added to the QRISK3 cardiovascular disease prediction score. Population-based cohort studies have shown a significant association of migraine with aura and cardiac arrhythmias, most importantly atrial fibrillation. Patients suffering from migraine with aura are at an increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias; thus, it is essential to screen these patients for undiagnosed cardiovascular disorders.

Efficacy, safety and indirect comparisons of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

METHODS

MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving n = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan.

CONCLUSION

Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself.PROSPERO trial registration: CRD42022308224.

Place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans, non-responders and contraindications to triptans and possible combination therapies

Background: For many years triptans have been the cornerstone of acute migraine treatment. Nevertheless, treatment with triptans may not always be initiated due to contraindications (seen in approximately one fifth of patients) or inadequate response (seen in approximately one third of patients). New acute therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)_1F receptor agonists, also known as ditans (lasmiditan) and small molecule antagonists of the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, also known as gepants (rimegepant and ubrogepant), may be an effective alternative. Methods: We searched Pubmed for keywords, summarized the literature and provided a comprehensive review on the place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans. Results and conclusion: Post-hoc analyses reported no differences in efficacy of gepants/ditans between responders and non-responders to triptans, but research is hampered by lack of consensus on the definition of non-responder. Due to (partially) overlapping mechanisms of action, it remains unknown whether combination therapy with lasmiditan, gepants and triptans will have added value over monotherapy. Preclinical studies and post-hoc analyses cautiously indicate that these new drugs are safe for patients with cardiovascular risk factors. However, long-term studies are needed to prove cardiovascular safety. The risk of developing medication overuse headache may differ between triptans, ditans and gepants, but further studies are needed to confirm this difference. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials of acute therapies and combinations of therapies are needed to determine their place in migraine treatment among established therapies.

Gepants for Acute and Preventive Migraine Treatment: A Narrative Review

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists are a class of medications that act as antagonists of the CGRP receptor or ligand. They can be divided into monoclonal antibodies and non-peptide small molecules, also known as gepants. CGRP antagonists were the first oral agents specifically designed to prevent migraines. The second generation of gepants includes rimegepant (BHV-3000, BMS-927711), ubrogepant (MK-1602), and atogepant (AGN-241689, MK-8031). Zavegepant (BHV-3500, BMS-742413) belongs to the third generation of gepants characterized by different administration routes. The chemical and pharmacological properties of this new generation of gepants were calculated. The clinical trials showed that the new generation of CGRP antagonists is effective for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraines. No increased mortality risks were observed to be associated with the second- and third-generation gepants. Moreover, the majority of the serious adverse events reported probably occurred unrelated to the medications. Interesting facts about gepants were highlighted, such as potency, hepatotoxicity, concomitant use with monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP, comparative analysis with triptans, and the "acute and preventive" treatment of migraine. Further studies should include an elderly population and compare the medications inside this class and with triptans. There are still concerns regarding the long-term side effects of these medications, such as chronic vascular hemodynamic impairment. Meanwhile, careful pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring should be performed in the clinical practice use of gepants.

A importância da abordagem dos distúrbios do sono no tratamento da enxaqueca

Resumo A enxaqueca ou migrânea, é uma das queixas mais comuns na prática clínica da neurologia. É multifatorial, sendo a insônia um fator de predisposição presente em quase 50% dos casos. A fisiopatologia da migrânea é complexa e envolve alterações em diversas áreas do SNC e que encontram vias comuns com os distúrbios do sono. Entre elas, conexões hipotalâmicas, hormônios e neuropeptídeos, como orexias e monoaminérgicos. Além disso, outros distúrbios do sono específicos se relacionam com a migrânea. Atualmente, o tratamento é individualizado e além de medidas medicamentosas, é proposto mudanças nos hábitos de vida e adequações do sono. Diante disso, é uma oportunidade terapêutica a associação entre sono e enxaqueca e isso pode ser feito com base em uma abordagem clínica detalhada durante a consulta.

Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings

Background

In the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

Data included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II–IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings.

Results

Across 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9–45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant.

Conclusions

The efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting.

350/350 words

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01440-w.

Safety evaluation of oral calcitonin-gene-related peptide receptor antagonists in patients with acute migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists have been suggested as novel treatments for acute migraine. This study aimed to use meta-analysis to compare the safety and tolerability of five existing oral CGRP receptor antagonists (BI44370TA, MK-3207, rimegepant, telcagepant, and ubrogepant) with that of a placebo or triptans against acute migraine.

METHODS

Five prominent databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on this topic. The primary safety outcomes of interest were any adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and secondary outcomes were individual events, namely diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, fatigue, nausea, paresthesia, somnolence, upper abdominal pain, and vomiting.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were examined in detail. Although, compared to placebo, oral CGRP receptor antagonists significantly increased the incidence of any AEs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.23), there was no difference in the incidence of TRAEs (RR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.00-1.38). Moreover, CGRP receptor antagonists were safer than triptans with respect to primary safety outcomes, such as any AEs (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.98) and TRAEs (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.58-0.79).

CONCLUSION

Despite oral CGRP receptor antagonists posing a significantly higher risk of AEs when compared to placebo, CGRP receptor antagonists have a favorable safety profile compared to triptans. Our findings inform strategies to enhance safety and tolerability in the treatment of acute migraine.

Targeting the adrenomedullin-2 receptor for the discovery and development of novel anti-cancer agents

INTRODUCTION

Adrenomedullin (AM) is a peptide responsible for many physiological processes including vascular health and hormone regulation. Dysregulation of AM signaling can stimulate cancers by promoting proliferation, angiogenesis and metastasis. Two AM receptors contribute to tumor progression in different ways. Adrenomedullin-1 receptor (AM₁R) regulates blood pressure and blocking AM signaling via AM₁R would be clinically unacceptable. Therefore, antagonizing adrenomedullin-2 receptor (AM₂R) presents as an avenue for anti-cancer drug development.

AREAS COVERED

We review the literature to highlight AM's role in cancer as well as delineating the specific roles AM₁R and AM₂R mediate in the development of a pro-tumoral microenvironment. We highlight the importance of exploring the residue differences between the receptors that led to the development of first-in-class selective AM₂R small molecule antagonists. We also summarize the current approaches targeting AM and its receptors, their anti-tumor effects and their limitations.

EXPERT OPINION

As tool compounds, AM₂R antagonists will allow the dissection of the functions of CGRPR (calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor), AM₁R and AM₂R, and has considerable potential as a first-in-class oncology therapy. Furthermore, the lack of detectable side effects and good drug-like pharmacokinetic properties of these AM₂R antagonists support the promise of this class of compounds as potential anti-cancer therapeutics.

Recent advances in targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide for the treatment of menstrual migraine: A narrative review

Menstrual migraine (MM) has a longer duration and higher drug resistance than non-perimenstrual migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and CGRP receptors are expressed in the peripheral and central nervous systems throughout the trigeminovascular system. The CGRP/CGRP receptor axis plays an important role in sensory physiology and pharmacology. CGRP receptor antagonists and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown consistent efficacy and tolerability in the prevention of chronic or episodic migraine and are now approved for clinical use. However, few studies have reported the use of these drugs in MM, and no specific treatment for MM has been approved. This review aimed to shed light on the recent advances in targeting calcitonin gene-related peptides for the treatment of menstrual migraines in PubMed. In this review, we first discuss the axis of the CGRP/CGRP receptor. We then discuss the role of CGRP receptor antagonists and anti-CGRP mAbs in MM treatment. Finally, we discuss the role of the combination of anti-CGRP mAbs and CGRP receptor antagonists in migraine treatment and the drugs that inhibit CGRP release. Altogether, the anti-CGRP mAbs or CGRP receptor antagonists showed good efficacy and safety in the treatment of MM.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

INTRODUCTION

It has been observed in recent years that levels of such molecules as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and, to a lesser extent, the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide are elevated during migraine attacks and in chronic migraine, both in the cerebrospinal fluid and in the serum. Pharmacological reduction of these proteins is clinically significant, with an improvement in patients' migraines. It therefore seems logical that one of the main lines of migraine research should be based on the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of this entity.

DEVELOPMENT

The Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group decided to draft this document in order to address the evidence on such important issues as the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and the mechanism of action of monoclonal antibodies and gepants; and to critically analyse the results of different studies and the profile of patients eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and the impact in terms of pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical development of gepants, which are CGRP antagonists, for the acute treatment of migraine attacks, and CGRP ligand and receptor monoclonal antibodies offer promising results for these patients.

A systematic review with expert opinion on the role of gepants for the preventive and abortive treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Gepants are small molecules targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) that have been recently introduced and are under additional clinical development as preventive and abortive treatment options for migraine.

AREAS COVERED

After providing a narrative overview of current preventive and acute treatment options for migraine and summarizing the pathophysiology of migraine attack and the role of CGRP, we performed a systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, on trials on gepants in preventive and acute treatment of migraine. Studies and results were reviewed and discussed, and expert opinion was presented. We also collected data on relevant ongoing trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Whether direct targeting CGRP pathways within the central nervous system or indirectly modulating them from the peripheral nervous system is more effective and safer in migraine remains still unclear. The available data on the efficacy and safety of gepants suggest they may represent an abortive, and to some extent, preventive treatment option for migraine, in patients who do not respond or have adverse effects to first/second line treatments or at high risk for medication overuse headache; thus opening new therapeutic horizons.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide in migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

INTRODUCTION

It has been observed in recent years that levels of such molecules as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and, to a lesser extent, the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide are elevated during migraine attacks and in chronic migraine, both in the cerebrospinal fluid and in the serum. Pharmacological reduction of these proteins is clinically significant, with an improvement in patients' migraines. It therefore seems logical that one of the main lines of migraine research should be based on the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of this entity.

DEVELOPMENT

The Spanish Society of Neurology's Headache Study Group decided to draft this document in order to address the evidence on such important issues as the role of CGRP in the pathophysiology of migraine and the mechanism of action of monoclonal antibodies and gepants; and to critically analyse the results of different studies and the profile of patients eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies, and the impact in terms of pharmacoeconomics.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical development of gepants, which are CGRP antagonists, for the acute treatment of migraine attacks, and CGRP ligand and receptor monoclonal antibodies offer promising results for these patients.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies and Antagonists in Migraine: Current Evidence and Rationale

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37 amino-acid neuropeptide found mostly in peptidergic sensory C-fibers, has been suggested to be implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological disorders seen in medical practice, affecting almost 16% of the US population. While previously thought to be a vascular condition, migraine attacks are the result of neurogenic inflammation and peripheral/central sensitization through dysfunctional activation of the trigeminovascular system. To date, two classes of therapeutic agents have been developed to interrupt the function of CGRP: CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule antagonists (gepants). There are currently four CGRP-targeted mAbs and three gepants that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of migraine. Multiple phase II and III studies have established the efficacies and tolerability of these treatments. Previously, we reviewed the fundamental role of CGRP in migraine pathogenesis. Here, we discuss in depth the clinical evidence (randomized controlled trials and real-world studies), safety, and tolerability of CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants for treating migraine.

Efficacy and safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists in migraine treatment: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We systematically reviewed the efficacy and safety of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine treatment.

METHODS

Various databases including PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data were electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on CGRP antagonists for migraine treatment since inception to March 2021. The trials were screened for inclusion, after which the methodological quality of the included trials was assessed. Then meta-analysis was performed using the Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 26 RCTs involving 21,736 patients were included. The CGRP antagonists group included 13,635 patients while the control group included 8101 patients. Meta-analysis showed that compared to the control group, CGRP antagonists were associated with various significant effects, including the following outcome indicators: (1) number of patients with ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (RR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.39,1.62], p < .00001); (2) number of patients with pain free at 2 h postdose (RR = 1.98, 95% CI [1.77, 2.20], p < .00001), and (3) number of patients with 2-24 h sustained pain free postdose (RR = 2.18, 95% CI [1.93, 2.46], p < .00001). However, the number of patients with any adverse events was significantly high in the antagonists group, relative to the control group (RR = 1.08, 95% CI [1.04, 1.12], p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

CGRP antagonists are significantly effective for migraine treatment; however, they are associated with various adverse events. Due to limitations with regards to quantity and quality of the included studies, the above conclusions should be verified by more high quality studies.

Anti-nociceptive effects of dual neuropeptide antagonist therapy in mouse model of neuropathic and inflammatory pain

Background

Neurokinin-1 (NK1) and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) play a vital role in pain pathogenesis, and these proteins' antagonists have attracted attention as promising pharmaceutical candidates. The authors investigated the antinociceptive effect of co-administration of the CGRP antagonist and an NK1 antagonist on pain models compared to conventional single regimens.

Methods

C57Bl/6J mice underwent sciatic nerve ligation for the neuropathic pain model and were injected with 4% formalin into the hind paw for the inflammatory pain model. Each model was divided into four groups: vehicle, NK1 antagonist, CGRP antagonist, and combination treatment groups. The NK1 antagonist aprepitant (BIBN4096, 1 mg/kg) or the CGRP antagonist olcegepant (MK-0869, 10 mg/kg) was injected intraperitoneally. Mechanical allodynia, thermal hypersensitivity, and anxiety-related behaviors were assessed using the von Frey, hot plate, and elevated plus-maze tests. The flinching and licking responses were also evaluated after formalin injection.

Results

Co-administration of aprepitant and olcegepant more significantly alleviated pain behaviors than administration of single agents or vehicle, increasing the mechanical threshold and improving the response latency. Anxiety-related behaviors were also markedly improved after dual treatment compared with either naive mice or the neuropathic pain model in the dual treatment group. Flinching frequency and licking response after formalin injection decreased significantly in the dual treatment group. Isobolographic analysis showed a meaningful additive effect between the two compounds.

Conclusions

A combination pharmacological therapy comprised of multiple neuropeptide antagonists could be a more effective therapeutic strategy for alleviating neuropathic or inflammatory pain.

Phase 3 randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled Trial of e-TNS for the Acute treatment of Migraine (TEAM)

Migraine is one of the most common and debilitating neurological disorders worldwide. External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-pharmacological, non-invasive therapeutic alternative for patients with migraine. The TEAM study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, Phase 3 trial for 2-h, continuous, e-TNS treatment of a single moderate or severe migraine attack at home. A total of 538 adults meeting the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd edition criteria for 2–8 migraine headache days per month were recruited and randomized in a 1:1 ratio to 2-h active or sham stimulation. Migraine pain levels and most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBS) were recorded at baseline, 2 h, and 24 h using a paper diary. The primary endpoints for the study were pain freedom at 2 h and freedom from the MBS at 2 h. The secondary endpoints were pain relief at 2 h, absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptoms (MBSs) at 2 h, acute medication use within 24 h after treatment, sustained pain freedom at 24 h, and sustained pain relief at 24 h. Adverse event data was also collected and compared between groups. Five hundred thirty-eight patients were randomized to either the verum (n = 259) or sham (n = 279) group and were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The percentage of patients with pain freedom at 2 h was 7.2% higher in verum (25.5%) compared to sham (18.3%; p = 0.043). Resolution of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom was 14.1% higher in verum (56.4%) compared to sham (42.3%; p = 0.001). With regards to secondary outcomes, pain relief at 2 h was 14.3% higher in verum (69.5%) than sham (55.2%; p = 0.001), absence of all migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h was 8.4% higher in verum (42.5%) than sham (34.1%; p = 0.044), sustained pain freedom and pain relief at 24 h was 7.0% and 11.5% higher in verum (22.8 and 45.9%) than sham (15.8 and 34.4%; p = 0.039 and .006, respectively). No serious adverse events were reported. Treatment with 2-h e-TNS is a safe and effective, non-invasive, and non-pharmacological alternative for the acute treatment of migraine attacks in an at-home setting.

Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03465904. Registered 14/03/2018. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03465904.

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.

Dim the Lights: A Narrative Review of Photophobia in Migraine

A preference for darkness is one of the main associated features in people with migraine, the cause remaining a mystery until some decades ago. In this article, we describe the epidemiology of photophobia in migraine and explain the pathophysiological mechanisms following an anatomical structure. In addition, we review the current management of migraine and photophobia. Ongoing characterization of patients with photophobia and its different manifestations continues to increase our understanding of the intricate pathophysiology of migraine and vice versa. Detailed phenotyping of the patient with photophobia is encouraged.

Safety and Risk of Medication Overuse Headache in Lasmiditan and Second-Generation Gepants: A Rapid Review

The treatment of migraine is often complicated by insufficient headache relief, a miscellany of side effects and the risk of developing Medication Overuse Headache (MOH). Novel acute therapies have been recently developed and are now in the early post-marketing phase. Lasmiditan is a highly selective serotonin receptor agonist that binds to the 5-HT_1F receptor, while ubrogepant and rimegepant antagonize the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. All three medications are now prescribed in a real-world setting, and an adequate level of knowledge is the starting point for rational use. In this rapid systematic review, we have established what is known about lasmiditan, ubrogepant and rimegepant, highlighting the most relevant safety aspects available from published studies and speculating about their risk of MOH.

Quality of Life Related to Functional Disability in Migraine Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all randomized trials investigating effect of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies on disability related to migraine in adult patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searched from inception to July 2020 with an additional review of clinical trial registries. Disability evaluated using change in patient reported Migraine Disability Assessment scores from baseline were considered for the final analysis. The network meta-analysis was conducted in Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS and R, with the random effects model selected to allow for apparent heterogeneity between studies in the treatment comparison effects.

RESULTS

Overall 41 studies (7095 migraineurs in 9 randomized trials) were included with treatment course of at least 12 weeks. Subcutaneous injections of fremanezumab 675+225+225 mg QM and 225+225+225 mg QM were more effective in reducing disability in chronic and episodic migraine patients, respectively, with higher median difference in Migraine Disability Assessment score from baseline compared with other treatments including erenumab (70 mg QM; 140 mg QM), galcanezumab (120 mg QM; 240 mg QM), and low doses of fremanezumab (225 mg single dose; 675 mg single dose).

DISCUSSION

For short-term prevention of migraine, fremanezumab demonstrated slightly better improvement in disability compared with other anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies in adult patients with migraine.

CGRP and CGRP-receptor as targets of migraine therapy: Brain Prize-2021

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent primary headache with an unclear pathomechanism. During the last 40 years numerous hypotheses have arisen, among them the theory of the trigeminovascular system is the primary one. It serves as a skeleton in successful preclinical studies and in the development of effective therapeutic options for migraine headache.

OBJECTIVE

The Brain Prize (awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation) is the most prestigious tribute in neuroscience. The winners in 2021 were Lars Edvinsson, Peter Goadsby, Michael Moskowitz and Jes Olesen. They are the fathers of the migraine pathomechanism which led to revolutionary new treatments. This review summarizes their landmark findings.

METHODS

Data related to this topic were reviewed from PubMed records published between 1979 and May 2021. Searches were based on preclinical and clinical studies in the covered field. The findings were listed in chronological order. From a therapeutic perspective, only randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis were discussed.

RESULTS

The calcitonin gene-related peptide-related pathogenesis of migraine is based on the activation of the trigeminovascular system. The therapeutic triad for migraine is triptans, gepants and calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSION

In the past 40 years, the systematic work of leading headache scientists has resulted in robust theoretical and therapeutic knowledge in the preclinical and clinical study of migraine.

Molecular mechanism in trigeminal nerve and treatment methods related to orthodontic pain

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic treatment is the main treatment approach for malocclusion. Orthodontic pain is an inevitable undesirable adverse reaction during orthodontic treatment. It is reported orthodontic pain has become one of the most common reason that patients withdraw from orthodontic treatment. Therefore, understanding the underlying mechanism and finding treatment of orthodontic pain are in urgent need.

AIMS

This article aims to sort out the mechanisms and treatments of orthodontic pain, hoping to provide some ideas for future orthodontic pain relief.

MATERIALS

Tooth movement will cause local inflammation. Certain inflammatory factors and cytokines stimulating the trigeminal nerve and further generating pain perception, as well as drugs and molecular targeted therapy blocking nerve conduction pathways, will be reviewed in this article.

METHOD

We review and summaries current studies related to molecular mechanisms and treatment approaches in orthodontic pain control.

RESULTS

Orthodontics pain related influencing factors and molecular mechanisms has been introduced. Commonly used clinical methods in orthodontic pain control has been evaluated.

DISCUSSION

With the clarification of more molecular mechanisms, the direction of orthodontic pain treatment will shift to targeted drugs.

The locus of Action of CGRPergic Monoclonal Antibodies Against Migraine: Peripheral Over Central Mechanisms

Migraine is a complex neurovascular disorder characterized by attacks of moderate to severe unilateral headache, accompanied by photophobia among other neurological signs. Although an arsenal of antimigraine agents is currently available in the market, not all patients respond to them. As Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) have been developed. Unfortunately, further pharmaceutical development (for olcegepant and telcagepant) was interrupted due to pharmacokinetic issues observed during the Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT). On this basis, the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs; immunoglobulins) against CGRP or its receptor has recently emerged as a novel pharmacotherapy to treat migraines. RCT showed that these mAbs are effective against migraines producing fewer adverse events. Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved four mAbs, namely: (i) erenumab; (ii) fremanezumab; (iii) galcanezumab; and (iv) eptinezumab. In general, specific antimigraine compounds exert their action in the trigeminovascular system, but the locus of action (peripheral vs. central) of the mAbs remains elusive. Since these mAbs have a molecular weight of ∼150 kDa, some studies rule out the relevance of their central actions as they seem unlikely to cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB). Considering the therapeutic relevance of this new class of antimigraine compounds, the present review has attempted to summarize and discuss the current evidence on the probable sites of action of these mAbs.

Efficacy and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for treatment of chronic migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all randomized trials investigating effects of anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) on adult patients with chronic migraine.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searched from inception to July 2020; and clinical trial registries. The network meta-analysis was conducted in Bayesian framework using OpenBUGS and R, with the random effects model selected to allow for apparent heterogeneity between studies in the treatment comparison effects.

RESULTS

Overall 38 studies (5164 chronic migraineurs in seven randomized trials) were included with treatment course of at least 12 weeks. Fremanezumab 675 + 225 + 225 mg QM (SC) injections were numerically more effective in lowering migraine days with lower MDs compared to eptinezumab 10 mg (IV) (MD: -1.52, 95% CrIs: -4.24, 0.99), eptinezumab 30 mg (IV) (MD: -0.33, 95% CrIs: -3.02, 2.16), eptinezumab 100 mg (IV) (MD: -0.59, 95% CrIs: -2.80, 1.42), eptinezumab 300 mg (IV) (MD: -0.02, 95% CrIs: -2.29, 1.98), erenumab 70 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.17, 95% CrIs: -2.84, 2.25), erenumab 140 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.18, 95% CrIs: -2.87, 2.26), fremanezumab 675 mg (SC) (MD: -0.30, 95% CrIs: -1.81, 1.14), galcanezumab 120 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.71, 95% CrIs: -3.44, 1.55) and galcanezumab 240 mg QM (SC) (MD: -0.58, 95% CrIs: -3.09, 1.89), however the results were non-significant. Similarly, the anti-CGRP mAbs were also observed to have comparable safety and immunogenicity with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all doses of anti-CGRP mAbs have comparable efficacy, safety and tolerability based on uncertainties in indirect comparisons for all outcomes, the calculated effect estimates numerically favored high doses of subcutaneous fremanezumab and intravenous eptinezumab as the effective therapy with acceptable safety and tolerability for short term prevention of chronic migraine.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 2: Pharmacological treatment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the second part of the guidelines, which is focused on the pharmacological treatment of migraine, including both the acute treatment of attacks and the prophylaxis of episodic migraine as well as chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. The specific situations that can be encountered in women with migraine are also discussed, including pregnancy, menstrual migraine, contraception and hormonal replacement therapy.

Acute Treatment of Migraine: What has Changed in Pharmacotherapies?

Background

Migraine is the most prevalent neurological disorder and the leading cause of disability in individuals under 50 years of age. Two types of migraine therapies have been defined: acute therapy (abortive or symptomatic treatment), the purpose of which is to interrupt migraine attacks, and preventive treatment (prophylactic treatment), the purpose of which is to reduce the frequency and severity of migraine attacks.

Objective

This paper reviews research advances in new agents for acute therapy of migraine.

Material and Methods

This review provides an overview of emerging new drugs for acute treatment of migraine based on clinical evidence and summarizes the milestones of different stages of clinical development.

Results

Two new formulations of sumatriptan, DFN-11 (3 mg doses of subcutaneous sumatriptan) and DFN-02 (a nasal spray of sumatriptan 10 mg and a permeation-enhancing excipient), have been developed, and both of them showed a fast-onset action with efficacy for acute treatment of migraine with fewer adverse events. New drug discovery programs shifted the focus to the development of ditans, a group of antimigraine drugs targeting 5-HT_1F receptors. Only lasmiditan has progressed to phase III clinical trials and was finally approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for acute migraine treatment. The other target for acute therapy is CGRP receptor antagonists, namely, gepants. Ubrogepant and rimegepant demonstrated statistically significant efficacy, and both were recently approved by the FDA. These 5-HT_1F receptor agonists and CGRP receptor antagonists did not cause vasoconstriction, offering advantages over the current mainstay of specific acute migraine treatment.

Conclusions

Overall, these new agents have expanded the available acute therapies for migraine treatment and will likely change the strategy with which we treat patients with migraine in the future.

Development and validation of a reporter gene assay for bioactivity determination of Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is critical for the pathophysiology of migraine, and four therapeutic antibodies targeting CGRP and its corresponding receptors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while many others are in the different stages of clinical trials. Bioactivity determination is essential for the quality control and clinical application of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). However, no bioassay has been reported to date. In this study, we developed a reporter gene assay (RGA) based on SK-N-MC cells stably expressing firefly luciferase driven by cAMP response element (CRE). The key assay parameters were optimized according to signal-to-noise (SNR), the response value, and the fitted dose-response curve. Validation of the RGA in accordance with ICH-Q2 guidelines showed that the method had good specificity, accuracy, linearity, and precision. The established RGA can be utilized as a reference method for release testing and stability studies of relevant antibodies.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed with the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman variance correction or by using a fixed-effect model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method if the number of studies was small.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes included pain freedom, pain relief, sustained pain freedom, sustained pain relief, and adverse events. The strength of evidence (SOE) was graded with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.

FINDINGS

Evidence on triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was summarized from 15 systematic reviews. For other interventions, 115 randomized clinical trials with 28 803 patients were included. Compared with placebo, triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used individually were significantly associated with reduced pain at 2 hours and 1 day (moderate to high SOE) and increased risk of mild and transient adverse events. Compared with placebo, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (low to high SOE), lasmiditan (5-HT1F receptor agonist; high SOE), dihydroergotamine (moderate to high SOE), ergotamine plus caffeine (moderate SOE), acetaminophen (moderate SOE), antiemetics (low SOE), butorphanol (low SOE), and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (low SOE) were significantly associated with pain reduction and increase in mild adverse events. The findings for opioids were based on low or insufficient SOE. Several nonpharmacologic treatments were significantly associated with improved pain, including remote electrical neuromodulation (moderate SOE), transcranial magnetic stimulation (low SOE), external trigeminal nerve stimulation (low SOE), and noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (moderate SOE). No significant difference in adverse events was found between nonpharmacologic treatments and sham.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There are several acute treatments for migraine, with varying strength of supporting evidence. Use of triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, dihydroergotamine, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, lasmiditan, and some nonpharmacologic treatments was associated with improved pain and function. The evidence for many other interventions, including opioids, was limited.

Ubrogepant: An Oral Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Receptor Antagonist for Abortive Migraine Treatment

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of ubrogepant as an abortive migraine treatment.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed was performed (January 2006 through May 2021) using the following search terms: ubrogepant, calcitonin gene related peptide, and abortive migraine therapy.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies evaluating ubrogepant's pharmacology, efficacy, and safety in humans for the treatment of migraine were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of migraine via data from ACHIEVE I and II. From ACHIEVE I, ubrogepant demonstrated superiority to placebo in freedom from migraine pain at 2 hours postdose (50-mg dose: odds ratio [OR] = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.25-2.66; 100-mg dose: OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.41-2.95) and freedom from most bothersome symptom (MBS; 50-mg dose: OR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.27-2.28; 100-mg dose: OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.22-2.17). ACHIEVE II trial demonstrated efficacy of ubrogepant 50 mg compared with placebo (2-hour pain freedom: OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.14-2.29; 2-hour MBS freedom: OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.25-2.20).

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Ubrogepant is a viable option for patients who are unable to tolerate nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or triptan therapy because of ineffective relief or contraindications that limit use.

CONCLUSIONS

Ubrogepant is a well-tolerated effective abortive migraine treatment that bridges a gap in therapy for many patients who previously could not tolerate other first-line treatments.

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.

Long-Term Safety Evaluation of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Phase 3, Randomized, 52-Week Extension Trial

Objective

To evaluate the long‐term safety and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

Background

Ubrogepant is an oral, calcitonin gene–related receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy of ubrogepant was demonstrated in 2 phase 3 trials in which a significant improvement was observed in migraine headache pain, migraine‐associated symptoms, and ability to function.

Methods

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, open‐label, 52‐week extension trial. Adults with migraine with or without aura entered the trial after completing one of 2 phase 3 lead‐in trials and were re‐randomized 1:1:1 to usual care, ubrogepant 50 mg, or ubrogepant 100 mg. Randomization to ubrogepant dose was blinded. Those randomized to usual care continued to treat migraine attacks with their own medication. The usual care arm was included in this trial to capture background rates of hepatic laboratory parameters and contextualize hepatic safety assessments. Safety and tolerability were the primary outcome measures. The safety population for the ubrogepant arms included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of treatment. All cases of alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were adjudicated by an independent panel of liver experts who were blinded to dose.

Results

The safety population included 1230 participants (404 in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group, 409 in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group, and 417 in the usual care group). Participants were on average 42 years of age, 90% (1106/1230) female and 85% (1043/1230) white, with an average BMI of 30 kg/m². Throughout the trial, 21,454 migraine attacks were treated with 31,968 doses of ubrogepant. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 268/404 (66%) participants receiving ubrogepant 50 mg and 297/409 (73%) receiving ubrogepant 100 mg. The most commonly reported TEAE was upper respiratory tract infection (<12%); findings were similar across dose groups. Treatment‐related TEAEs were reported by 42/404 (10%) participants in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group and 43/409 (11%) in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 9/404 (2%) participants in the ubrogepant 50‐mg group and 12/409 (3%) participants in the ubrogepant 100‐mg group. Twenty cases of ALT/AST levels of ≥3 times the upper limit of normal were reported and reviewed by an independent clinical adjudication committee of liver experts. There were no cases of Hy’s Law.

Conclusions

Long‐term intermittent use of ubrogepant 50 and 100 mg given as 1 or 2 doses per attack for the acute treatment of migraine was safe and well tolerated, as indicated by a low incidence of treatment‐related TEAEs and SAEs and discontinuations due to adverse events in this 1‐year trial.

Therapeutic targeting of nitroglycerin-mediated trigeminovascular neuronal hypersensitivity predicts clinical outcomes of migraine abortives

ABSTRACT

Cranial hypersensitivity is a prominent symptom of migraine, exhibited as migraine headache exacerbated with physical activity, and cutaneous facial allodynia and hyperalgesia. The underlying mechanism is believed to be, in part, activation and sensitization of dural-responsive trigeminocervical neurons. Validated preclinical models that exhibit this phenotype have great utility for understanding putative mechanisms and as a tool to screen therapeutics. We have previously shown that nitroglycerin triggers cranial allodynia in association with migraine-like headache, and this translates to neuronal cranial hypersensitivity in rats. Furthermore, responses in both humans and rats are aborted by triptan administration, similar to responses in spontaneous migraine. Here, our objective was to study the nitroglycerin model examining the effects on therapeutic targets with newly approved treatments, specifically gepants and ditans, for the acute treatment of migraine. Using electrophysiological methods, we determined changes to ongoing firing and somatosensory-evoked cranial sensitivity, in response to nitroglycerin, followed by treatment with a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, gepant (olcegepant), a 5-HT1F receptor agonist, ditan (LY344864), and an NK1 receptor antagonist (GR205171). Nitroglycerin induced activation of migraine-like central trigeminocervical neurons, and intracranial and extracranial neuronal hypersensitivity. These responses were aborted by olcegepant and LY344864. However, GR205171, which failed in clinical trial for both abortive and preventive treatment of migraine, had no effect. These data support the nitroglycerin model as a valid approach to study cranial hypersensitivity and putative mechanisms involved in migraine and as a screen to dissect potentially efficacious migraine therapeutic targets.

CGRP Receptor Antagonists and 5-HT1F Receptor Agonist in the Treatment of Migraine

Discovering that calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in the complex pathophysiology of migraine has allowed us to make great strides in the development of new approaches for acute and preventive treatment. This evidence has led to the development of small molecules antagonist molecules of the CGRP receptor ("gepants") and of a new class of medications called "Ditans". This review presents the data from clinical trials reporting the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the new drugs used in the treatment of migraines. Evidences show that therapeutic approaches targeted to CGRP have the potential to transform the clinical management of migraine, even though its appropriate place has yet to be determined with accuracy.

Relationship of the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibody Galcanezumab Pharmacokinetics and Capsaicin-Induced Dermal Blood Flow in Healthy Subjects

Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, was recently approved for migraine prophylaxis. The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) relationship between galcanezumab concentration and inhibition of capsaicin-induced dermal blood flow (CIDBF) was evaluated using first-in-human data following 6 single subcutaneous doses (1 to 600 mg) or multiple (4) 150-mg doses every 2 weeks in 7 cohorts (7 actively treated subjects and 2 placebo-treated healthy subjects). Galcanezumab pharmacokinetics were best described by a 1-compartment model with delayed first-order absorption/linear elimination. Apparent estimates (between-subject variability) of clearance, volume of distribution, absorption rate constant, and lag time were 0.0106 L/h (27%CV), 11.2 L (21%CV), 0.0192 h^-1 (89%CV), and 0.202 hours, respectively. Estimated elimination half-life was about 30 days. An effect compartment link model described the concentration-effect relationship; estimated maximum inhibitory effect was 70.5%, and 50% maximum inhibitory effect concentration (IC₅₀ ) was 1060 ng/mL. Galcanezumab showed dose- and concentration-dependent potent and durable inhibition of CIDBF. Simulated effect compartment concentrations were maintained above IC₅₀ after 12 weeks of dosing. Near-maximal CIDBF inhibition occurred with 150 mg biweekly for 12 weeks lasting ≥24 weeks or with ≥30 mg every 2 weeks or 195 mg every 13 weeks. Quantitative modeling of galcanezumab PK/PD supported dose selection for the phase 2 proof-of-concept study.

Migraine: Calcium Channels and Glia

Migraine is a common neurological disease that affects about 11% of the adult population. The disease is divided into two main clinical subtypes: migraine with aura and migraine without aura. According to the neurovascular theory of migraine, the activation of the trigeminovascular system (TGVS) and the release of numerous neuropeptides, including calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) are involved in headache pathogenesis. TGVS can be activated by cortical spreading depression (CSD), a phenomenon responsible for the aura. The mechanism of CSD, stemming in part from aberrant interactions between neurons and glia have been studied in models of familial hemiplegic migraine (FHM), a rare monogenic form of migraine with aura. The present review focuses on those interactions, especially as seen in FHM type 1, a variant of the disease caused by a mutation in CACNA1A, which encodes the α1A subunit of the P/Q-type voltage-gated calcium channel.