Long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine attacks

BACKGROUND

Long-term data helps assess the consistency of efficacy, tolerability, and safety of acute treatment over repeated use for different attacks. Real-world studies help assess tolerability, safety, and efficacy in patients with possibly refractory chronic migraine, more comorbidities, other diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, and polypharmacy.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Both manuscripts and abstracts were reviewed.

RESULTS

The efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant are maintained over time. No significant cardiovascular adverse events were thought to be related to any of these medications. The rare instances of palpitations and/or tachycardia occurred within 48 hours of lasmiditan. One participant with a history of supraventricular tachycardia had sinus tachycardia thought to be related to ubrogepant which did not recur despite continued use. One case of thrombocytopenia and two cases of increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase were thought to be possibly related, but the alanine transaminase and aspartate aminotransferase levels normalized despite continued use of ubrogepant. A case of first-degree atrioventricular block was considered possibly related to rimegepant. Acute use of rimegepant was associated with a decrease in monthly migraine days over time. The three medications were associated with improvement in function and/or productivity.

CONCLUSION

Long-term and real-world data of tolerability, safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant is thus far consistent with prior studies, but more longitudinal data that clarifies long-term safety as well as consistency and predictors of response is needed.

European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure

Background

Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder.

Main body

The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics.

Conclusions

The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01502-z.

Cardiovascular Disease and Migraine: Are the New Treatments Safe?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The authors present data on cardiovascular safety for the new acute and preventive migraine treatments including ditans, gepants, and calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) alongside older medications like triptans and ergotamines.

RECENT FINDINGS

The authors conclude that there are no cardiovascular safety concerns for lasmiditan, and that it could be used in those with cardiovascular disease. In fact, the literature even suggests that triptans are safer in cardiovascular disease than their contraindications may suggest. At this time, there is insufficient evidence that gepants and CGRP mAbs should be contraindicated in those with cardiovascular disease including stroke or myocardial infarction, though erenumab has now been associated with hypertension. Vasodilation may be an important CGRP-mediated mechanism mid-ischemia especially in patients with small vessel disease; hence, CGRP antagonists should be use with caution in this context. Long-term data is still needed, and prescribers should ensure patients are aware of the limitations of our knowledge at this time, while still offering these effective and well-tolerated treatment options.

Tolerability and Safety of Lasmiditan Treatment in Elderly Patients With Migraine: Post Hoc Analyses From Randomized Studies

PURPOSE

Limited information is available on acute treatments for migraine in elderly patients. Our objective was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of lasmiditan, a serotonin 1F agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine in elderly compared with nonelderly patients, with special emphasis on cardiovascular-related issues because cardiovascular comorbidities are more common in the elderly population.

METHODS

These post hoc analyses evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in elderly (≥65 years of age) versus nonelderly (<65 years of age) lasmiditan-treated patients. Two clinical trials entitled A Study of Two Doses of LAsMiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) Compared to Placebo in the AcUte Treatment of MigRAIne (SAMURAI) and A Study of Three Doses of Lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg) Compared to Placebo in the Acute TReaTment of MigrAiNe (SPARTAN) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III studies in adults (no upper age limit) who took placebo or lasmiditan 50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg for a single migraine attack within 4 hours of the onset of moderate or severe pain. Patients who completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN were eligible to enroll in An Open-label, LonG-term, Safety Study of LAsmiDItan (100 mg and 200 mg) in the Acute Treatment Of MigRaine (GLADIATOR), a Phase III, randomized, open-label, multiattack study of lasmiditan 100 or 200 mg. For pooled SAMURAI+SPARTAN data, treatment × age subgroup interactions were examined using logistic regression analyses. In addition, common cardiovascular event rates were assessed from GLADIATOR during 3 periods: treatment-emergent (<48 hours after dosing), intermediate (48 hours to 1 week after dosing), and remote (>1 week after dosing).

FINDINGS

Of 3177 lasmiditan-treated patients in SAMURAI or SPARTAN, 132 (4.2%) were elderly, and of 1262 placebo-treated patients, 54 (4.3%) were elderly. Of 2030 lasmiditan-treated patients in GLADIATOR, 85 (4.2%) were elderly. The incidences of at least 1 TEAE with lasmiditan in nonelderly and elderly patients with migraine were 36% and 35% in pooled SAMURAI+SPARTAN, respectively, and 49% and 38% in GLADIATOR, respectively. No significant treatment × age subgroup interactions were observed in patients with ≥1 TEAE overall or for any individual TEAE in pooled SPARTAN+SAMURAI; however, numerical differences in the incidence of some specific TEAEs were seen. No treatment × age subgroup interactions and no tolerability concerns for individual TEAEs were detected. Cardiovascular TEAEs were much more frequent in the nonelderly population than the elderly population. Cardiovascular events were not reported in the elderly population during the treatment-emergent period or intermediate period. There were 2 cases of increased blood pressure in elderly patients during the remote period.

IMPLICATIONS

The incidence of TEAEs was similar for elderly and nonelderly patients, and cardiovascular safety of lasmiditan was generally consistent with that in single-attack studies. No safety signals were observed with the limited number of patients in the elderly population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02565186 (GLADIATOR), NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), and NCT02605174 (SPARTAN).

Future prophylactic treatments in migraine: Beyond anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants

Migraine is ranked as a leading cause of years lived with disability among all neurological disorders. Therapies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway, including monoclonal antibodies against the receptor or ligand and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), are today approved for migraine prophylaxis with additional compounds expected to be introduced to the market soon. In this review, we consider other putative prophylactic migraine drugs in development, including compounds targeting G-protein coupled receptors, glutamate, ion channels, and neuromodulatory devices. Emergence of these new interventions could complement our current treatment armamentarium for migraine management.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trajectory of migraine-related disability following long-term treatment with lasmiditan: results of the GLADIATOR study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is recognized as the second leading cause of disability globally. Lasmiditan is a novel, selective serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist developed for acute treatment of migraine. Here we analyzed effects of lasmiditan on migraine disability assessed with the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scale for interim data from a long-term safety study.

METHODS

Completers of two single-attack parent studies were offered participation in the 1 year GLADIATOR study, that randomized participants to treatment with lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg taken as needed for migraine attacks of at least moderate severity. Changes in MIDAS were modeled using a mixed model repeated measures analysis.

RESULTS

The sample included 1978 patients who received ≥1 lasmiditan dose and were followed for a median of 288 days. Baseline mean MIDAS scores for the lasmiditan 100-mg and 200-mg groups were 29.4 and 28.9, respectively, indicating severe migraine-related disability. Relative to baseline, MIDAS total scores were significantly lower at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for both dose groups. At 12 months, changes in MIDAS scores were - 12.5 and - 12.2 for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg, respectively, with 49% and 53% of patients, respectively, achieving at least a 50% decrease in MIDAS total score. Statistically significant improvements were also seen for work and/or school absenteeism and presenteeism, monthly headache days, and mean headache pain intensity at all time points up to 1 year. Findings for patients who completed all visits versus those dropping out early were similar. Responses were generally similar for the lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg doses, between subgroups defined based on the number of baseline monthly migraine attacks (≤5 vs. >5), and also between subgroups defined by pain-free response (yes/no) during initial attacks.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with lasmiditan was associated with significant reductions in migraine-related disability, including both work or school absenteeism and presenteeism. The similarity of responses in completers and those who dropped out suggests that selective attrition does not account for the improvements. Benefits were significant at 3 months and maintained through 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.govNCT02565186; first posted October 1, 2015.

Lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients with cardiovascular risk factors: post-hoc analysis of pooled results from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

In addition to the increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease and CV events associated with migraine, patients with migraine can also present with a number of CV risk factors (CVRFs). Existing treatment options can be limited due to contraindications, increased burden associated with monitoring, or patient avoidance of side effects. Safe and effective migraine treatment options are needed for patients with migraine and a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease or with increased risk for CV events. This analysis was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of oral lasmiditan, a selective serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 1F receptor agonist, in acute treatment of migraine attacks in patients with CVRFs.

METHODS

SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in adults treating a single migraine attack with lasmiditan 50, 100, or 200 mg. Both studies included patients with CVRFs, and SPARTAN allowed patients with coronary artery disease, clinically significant arrhythmia, or uncontrolled hypertension. Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in subgroups of patients with differing levels of CVRFs are reported. For efficacy analyses, logistic regression was used to assess treatment-by-subgroup interactions. For safety analyses, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test of general association evaluated treatment comparisons; Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio assessed significant treatment effects.

RESULTS

In this pooled analysis, a total of 4439 patients received ≥1 dose of study drug. A total of 3500 patients (78.8%) had ≥1 CVRF, and 1833 patients (41.3%) had ≥2 CVRFs at baseline. Both trials met the primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h. The presence of CVRFs did not affect efficacy results. There was a low frequency of likely CV treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) overall (lasmiditan, 30 [0.9%]; placebo, 5 [0.4%]). There was no statistical difference in the frequency of likely CV TEAEs in either the absence or presence of any CVRFs. The only likely CV TEAE seen across patients with ≥1, ≥ 2, ≥ 3, or ≥ 4 CVRFs was palpitations.

CONCLUSIONS

When analyzed by the presence of CVRFs, there was no statistical difference in lasmiditan efficacy or the frequency of likely CV TEAEs. Despite the analysis being limited by a single-migraine-attack design, the lack of differences in efficacy and safety with increasing numbers of CVRFs indicates that lasmiditan might be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with CVRFs. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), registered 18 March 2015 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02605174 (SPARTAN), registered 11 November 2015.

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials

OBJECTIVE

To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications.

BACKGROUND

While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives.

METHODS

SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2 h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

In these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2 h, compared to placebo (p < 0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2 h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2 h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ≥0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.

Therapeutic novelties in migraine: new drugs, new hope?

Background

In the past decade, migraine research has identified novel drug targets. In this review, we discuss recent data on emerging anti-migraine therapies.

Main body

The development of ditans, gepants and anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of migraine is one of the greatest advances in the migraine field. Lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant will extend our therapeutic armamentarium for managing acute migraine attacks when triptans are not effective or contraindicated due to cardiovascular disorders. The monoclonal antibodies are migraine specific prophylactic drugs with high responder rates and favorable adverse event profiles. Furthermore, they offer convenient treatment regimens of 4- or 12-week intervals.

Conclusion

Collectively, novel migraine therapies represent a major progress in migraine treatment and will undoubtedly transform headache medicine.