Preventive Treatment Of Episodic Migraine Research Articles

Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.

To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Sustained response to atogepant in episodic migraine: post hoc analyses of a 12-week randomized trial and a 52-week long-term safety trial

BackgroundAtogepant is an oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. These analyses evaluated the proportions of clinical trial participants who experienced sustained responses to atogepant over 12 or 52 weeks of treatment.MethodsThese were post hoc analyses of ADVANCE, a 12-week, double-blind, randomized trial of atogepant 10, 30, and 60 mg once daily vs. placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, and a separate open-label long-term safety (LTS) trial of atogepant 60 mg once daily over 52 weeks. The 60 mg dose of atogepant was used to detect safety issues. An initial response was defined as ≥50%, ≥75%, or 100% reduction from baseline in MMDs in month 1 for ADVANCE or quarter 1 for the LTS trial. The proportions of participants who continued to experience a response above each response-defining threshold through each subsequent month (for ADVANCE) or each quarter (for LTS) were calculated.ResultsIn ADVANCE, sustained response rates during months 2 and 3 varied with dose and were as follows: 70.8–81.1% following an initial ≥50% response, 47.3–61.9% following an initial ≥75% response, and 34.8–41.7% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during month 1, more than 79% continued to experience at least a 50% response during both months 2 and 3. During the LTS trial, sustained response rates through quarters 2, 3, and 4 were 84.7% following an initial ≥50% response, 72.6% following an initial ≥75% response, and 37.8% following an initial 100% response. Of those who experienced an initial ≥75% or 100% response during quarter 1, more than 90% continued to experience at least a 50% response through quarters 2, 3, and 4.ConclusionOver 70% of participants who experienced an initial response with atogepant treatment had a sustained response with continued treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03777059 (submitted: December 13, 2018); NCT03700320 (submitted: September 25, 2018).

The Effect of Melatonin on Reducing the Frequency and Severity of Migraine Attacks: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.

There is no definite recommendation for melatonin supplementation in episodic migraine. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of melatonin on reducing the frequency and severity of migraine attacks. This randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted at Golestan Hospital of Ahvaz, Iran, in 2021. A total of 60 patients with episodic migraine were randomly assigned into 2 groups of receiving 3 mg melatonin (intervention group; n=30) or the same dose of placebo (control group; n=30) along with baseline therapy (propranolol 20 mg, BID) for two months. The attack frequency, attack duration, attack severity (based on VAS), the number of analgesic intakes, drug complications, Migraine Disability Assessment score (MIDAS), and Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) were evaluated at baseline and in the first, second, third, and fourth months of follow-up. The independent t test, chi-square, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures were used to compare variables between the two groups. In both groups, the frequency, duration, and severity of attacks, taking analgesics, MIDAS, and PSQI scores during follow-up decreased significantly (P<0.001). After treatment, the mean frequency (P=0.032) and duration of attacks (P=0.001), taking analgesic (P<0.001), and MIDAS (P<0.001) and PSQI scores (P<0.001) in the melatonin group were lower than placebo. Only the attack severity was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.126). Side effects were observed in two patients (6.7%) in the melatonin group and one patient (3.3%) in the placebo group (P>0.999). Our study shows that melatonin was more efficacious than the placebo in the reduction of frequency and duration of migraine attacks. It was equally safe as the placebo and might be effective in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults.Trial Registration Number: IRCT20190107042264N5.

Safety and Tolerability of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Participants Taking Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from the TANDEM Trial (S22.005)

Safety and Tolerability of Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine in Participants Taking Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from the TANDEM Trial (S22.005)

Preventive Treatment of Migraine.

This article describes strategies for the preventive treatment of migraine including the emerging role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies and introduces novel paradigms for the preventive treatment of migraine. Multiple migraine medications targeting CGRP have been introduced since 2018, including injectable monoclonal antibodies (ie, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (ie, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, and zavegepant). With the exceptions of ubrogepant and zavegepant, which are approved only as acute treatments, all of these agents have demonstrated efficacy in the preventive treatment of migraine; the monoclonal antibodies and atogepant have evidence of effectiveness in adults with either episodic or chronic migraine. The safety and tolerability profiles of CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine are favorable. The goals of preventive migraine therapy include reducing the frequency, severity, duration, and disability associated with attacks, reducing the need for acute treatment and the risk of medication overuse, enhancing self-efficacy and health-related quality of life, and reducing headache-related distress and interictal burden. Six drugs targeting CGRP (four monoclonal antibodies and two gepants) are now available for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. The efficacy of CGRP-targeted medications in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine, together with good safety and tolerability, has led to the emergence of new approaches to preventive treatment.

Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

BackgroundThe reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM).MethodsA Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model.ResultsAfter a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY).ConclusionsErenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Oral CGRP Antagonists, Atogepant and Rimegepant, for the Preventative Treatment of Episodic Migraine: Results from a US Societal Perspective Model.

Two oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, atogepant and rimegepant, were approved in 2021 for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM), yet no formal cost-effectiveness analysis has been published. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atogepant 60 mg and rimegepant 75 mg compared with placebo. A decision tree model was constructed over a 1-year time horizon from a US societal perspective. Patient cohorts were simulated using baseline and change from baseline monthly migraine days (MMDs) reported in the trials to incorporate responder rates and within patient response into the model. Due to heterogeneity between the trial populations, each medication was compared with its respective trial's placebo group. Direct healthcare resource costs, productivity costs, acute medication costs, and quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature. The atogepant cohort experienced an incremental increase in healthcare plus productivity costs of $11,978 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.026 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of more than $450,000/QALY. The rimegepant cohort experienced an incremental increase of $21,692 when compared with placebo, with a gain of 0.024 QALYs. This yields an ICER of more than $890,000/QALY when comparing rimegepant with placebo. Cost savings between atogepant and atogepant placebo were greatest with respect to acute medication costs at $735 of savings over 1 year, followed by savings of $135 for healthcare resource utilization and $34 for productivity costs. A similar relationship was seen between rimegepant and rimegepant placebo. One-way deterministic sensitivity analysis found that monthly acquisition costs of atogepant and rimegepant had the largest impact on the ICER, respectively. Atogepant and rimegepant were both unable to meet generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds < 150,0000/QALY. Additional studies are needed to better guide decision making regarding oral CGRPs' place in therapy.

Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3b trial

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, has been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine, but its efficacy and safety in people who have been failed by conventional oral preventive migraine treatments has not yet been evaluated in a dedicated clinical trial. The ELEVATE trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in participants for whom two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments have failed. ELEVATE was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b trial done at 73 sites in Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, the UK, and the USA. Adults (18-80 years) with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral treatments for migraine prevention were randomly assigned (1:1) using interactive web response technology to oral atogepant 60 mg once a day or placebo, stratified by baseline monthly migraine days, number of treatment classes participants have been failed by, and region. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days across the 12-week treatment period in the off-treatment hypothetical estimand (OTHE) population, which included participants in the safety population (all participants who received ≥1 dose of study intervention) who had evaluable data available for the baseline period and for one or more of the 4-week post-baseline periods (whether on treatment or off treatment). The primary endpoint was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures and a fixed-sequence procedure was used to control for multiple comparisons. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04740827) and EudraCT (2019-003448-58), and is completed. Between March 5, 2021, and Aug 4, 2022, 540 participants were screened, 315 were randomly assigned, and 313 participants (280 [89%] female, 33 [11%] male, and 300 [96%] White) received at least one dose of study intervention. In the OTHE population, which comprised 309 participants (155 assigned to placebo and 154 to atogepant), least squares mean changes from baseline in monthly migraine days across 12 weeks were -1·9 (SE 0·4) with placebo and -4·2 (0·4) with atogepant (least squares mean difference -2·4, 95% CI -3·2 to -1·5; adjusted p<0·0001). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with atogepant was constipation in 16 (10%) of 156 participants (vs four [3%] of 157 for placebo). Serious adverse events occurred in four [3%] of 156 participants in the atogepant group vs none in the placebo group, and treatment-emergent adverse events resulting in treatment discontinuation occurred in three [2%] in the atogepant group vs two [1%] in the placebo group. Atogepant 60 mg once a day was safe, well tolerated, and showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in mean monthly migraine days compared with placebo across 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine who had previously been failed by two to four classes of conventional oral preventive treatments. Atogepant might be an effective preventive treatment option for patients in this difficult-to-treat population. Allergan (now AbbVie).

Atogepant (Qulipta)

&#x0D; CADTH recommends that Qulipta be reimbursed by public drug plans for the prevention of episodic migraine, if certain conditions are met.&#x0D; Qulipta should only be reimbursed for adults with episodic migraine, according to the criteria used by public drug plans for other calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors for the prevention of episodic migraine.&#x0D; In addition to following the pre-existing criteria for other CGRP inhibitors, Qulipta should not be used in combination with other CGRP inhibitors. Qulipta should only be reimbursed if the cost is reduced such that the total treatment cost of Qulipta does not exceed the total treatment cost of the least costly CGRP inhibitor reimbursed for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults.&#x0D;

Effects of Rimegepant 75 mg on Monthly Migraine Days: a 52-Week, Open-Label Extension Study (P10-12.010)

Effects of Rimegepant 75 mg on Monthly Migraine Days: a 52-Week, Open-Label Extension Study (P10-12.010)

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Atogepant: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ADVANCE Trial (P12-12.001)

Benefit-Risk Assessment of Atogepant: A Post Hoc Analysis of the ADVANCE Trial (P12-12.001)

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS phase 3 trial (S47.005)

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: results from the PROGRESS phase 3 trial (S47.005)

Matching adjusted indirect comparison of acupuncture versus fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine

Objective Acupuncture and fremanezumab are second-line treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We aimed to compare acupuncture with fremanezumab in the preventive treatment of episodic migraine by using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis (MAIC). Methods We acquired participant-level data from an acupuncture trial recruiting 302 participants and summary-level data from a fremanezumab trial recruiting 875 participants (290 participants received monthly fremanezumab [MF] and 291 received single-dose fremanezumab [SF]). The primary outcome was the mean reduction in monthly headache days. The secondary outcomes were the mean reduction in monthly moderate-to-severe headache days, days with acute medication, and the adverse events rate. Results Before matching, the acupuncture arm had significantly lower BMI, fewer headache days with at least moderate severity, and fewer days with acute medication. After matching, the baseline variables were comparable between groups. The three arms had no difference in the change of monthly migraine days (MF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.3, 95%CI −0.5 to 1.1, p-value = 0.473; SF vs. acupuncture: mean difference 0.5, 95%CI −0.3 to 1.3, p-value = 0.214). The results were similar in the analyses of secondary outcomes sensitivity analyses. Thirty-six (25%) participants in the acupuncture arm reported adverse events, versus 192(66%) participants in the MF arm and 193 (66%) in the SF arm. Conclusion The preventive treatment effect of acupuncture is equivalent to fremanezumab, and it presented with a lower adverse event rate, which indicates that acupuncture can be an alternative to fremanezumab.

Safety and tolerability results of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine from a 40-week, open-label multicenter extension of the phase 3 ADVANCE trial

Atogepant is a United States Food and Drug Administration-approved oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. The study objective was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of atogepant in participants who completed the phase 3 ADVANCE trial (NCT03777059). This 40-week, open-label extension trial (NCT03939312) monitored safety in participants receiving oral atogepant 60 mg once daily, followed by a four-week safety follow-up period. Of the 685 participants taking at least one dose of atogepant, the treatment period was completed by 74.6% of participants with a mean (standard deviation) treatment duration of 233.6 (89.3) days. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 62.5% of participants, with upper respiratory tract infection (5.5%), urinary tract infection (5.3%), nasopharyngitis (4.8%), sinusitis (3.6%), constipation (3.4%), and nausea (3.4%) occurring at ≥3%. Serious adverse events were observed in 3.4% of participants (none were treatment-related), and there were no deaths. Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurring at >0.1% were nausea (0.4%) and abdominal pain, vomiting, weight decrease, dizziness, and migraine (0.3% each). These results are consistent with atogepant's known safety profile and support long-term use of atogepant 60 mg once daily dosing as safe and well tolerated.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Number: NCT03939312.

Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab as a Preventive Treatment for Episodic Migraine in South Korean Patients: A Post-Hoc Analysis of a Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

The estimated prevalence of migraines in South Korea is 6.0%, with affected patients having unmet needs. The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, for episodic migraine (EM) prevention was evaluated in South Korean patients. During the double-blind period of the EVOLVE-2 phase 3 trial, patients with EM were randomized into placebo, 120 mg-galcanezumab, and 240-mg galcanezumab treatment groups. The primary endpoint was the overall mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the 6-month double-blind period. We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the South Korean cohort in EVOLVE-2. Among 98 South Korean patients in the intent-to-treat population, significant changes from baseline were observed in the number of monthly migraine headache days in the 240-mg galcanezumab group compared with the placebo group (-2.64, p=0.013), in the percentage of patients with ≥50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine headache days (120 mg: odds ratio=2.43, p=0.030; 240 mg: odds ratio=2.60, p=0.019), in the number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use (120 mg: -2.22, p=0.006; 240 mg: -2.23, p=0.005), and in the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Role Function-Restrictive (120 mg: 8.34, p=0.040). Numerical improvements from baseline were observed relative to the placebo group in at least one galcanezumab group for: the percentage of patients with ≥75% reduction in the number of monthly migraine headache days functional impairment, and disease severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event in the combined galcanezumab group was injection site reaction, which led to treatment discontinuation for one patient. Galcanezumab treatment demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety and tolerability profile in South Korean patients with EM.

Atogepant for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

IntroductionThe inhibition of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway has attracted interest in pharmacological research on migraine. Atogepant is a potent, selective, orally available antagonist of the CGRP receptor approved as a preventive treatment of episodic migraine. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adult patients.MethodsRandomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blinded trials were identified through a systematic literature search (December week 4, 2021). Main outcomes included the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days and the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and treatment withdrawal due to AEs. Mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated.ResultsTwo trials were included, overall enrolling 1550 patients. A total of 408 participants were randomized to placebo, 314 to atogepant 10 mg, 411 to atogepant 30 mg, and 417 to atogepant 60 mg once daily. The mean age of the patients was 41.0 years and 87.7% were women. The reduction in the mean number of migraine days from baseline across the 12-week treatment period was significantly greater among patients treated with atogepant at either the daily dose of 10 mg (MD − 1.16, 95% CI − 1.60 to − 0.73, p < 0.001), 30 mg (MD − 1.15, 95% CI − 1.54 to − 0.76, p < 0.001), or 60 mg (MD − 1.20, 95% CI − 2.18 to − 0.22, p = 0.016) than with placebo. There were no differences in the occurrence of AEs and drug withdrawal due to AEs between atogepant and placebo groups. Constipation was more commonly observed in patients treated with atogepant at 30 mg/day than placebo (RR 5.19, 95% CI 2.00–13.46; p = 0.001). Treatment with atogepant at the daily dose of 60 mg was associated with a higher risk of constipation (RR 4.92, 95% CI 1.89–12.79; p = 0.001) and nausea (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.47–5.06; p = 0.001) than placebo.ConclusionAtogepant is an efficacious and overall well-tolerated treatment for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-022-00370-8.

Drug Safety in Episodic Migraine Management in Adults. Part 2: Preventive Treatments.

The aim of this review is to aid in decision-making when choosing safe and effective options for preventive migraine medications. In Part 2, we have compiled clinically relevant safety considerations for commonly used migraine prophylactic treatments. Preventive treatment of episodic migraine includes nonspecific and migraine-specific drugs. While medications from several pharmacological classes-such as anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, and antidepressants-have an established efficacy in migraine prevention, they are associated with a number of side effects. The safety of migraine-specific treatments such as anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants are also discussed. This review highlights safety concerns of commonly used migraine prophylactic agents and offers suggestions on how to mitigate those risks.

Atogepant - an orally-administered CGRP antagonist - attenuates activation of meningeal nociceptors by CSD.

This study investigated the mechanism of action of atogepant, a small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist recently approved for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine, by assessing its effect on activation of mechanosensitive C- and Aδ-meningeal nociceptors following cortical spreading depression. Single-unit recordings of trigeminal ganglion neurons (32 Aδ and 20 C-fibers) innervating the dura was used to document effects of orally administered atogepant (5 mg/kg) or vehicle on cortical spreading depression-induced activation in anesthetized male rats. Bayesian analysis of time effects found that atogepant did not completely prevent the activation of nociceptors at the tested dose, but it significantly reduced response amplitude and probability of response in both the C- and the Aδ-fibers at different time intervals following cortical spreading depression induction. For C-fibers, the reduction in responses was significant in the early phase (first hour), but not delayed phase of activation, whereas in Aδ-fibers, significant reduction in activation was apparent in the delayed phase (second and third hours) but not early phase of activation. These findings identify differences between the actions of atogepant, a small molecule CGRP antagonist (partially inhibiting both Aδ and C-fibers) and those found previously for fremanezumab, a CGRP-targeted antibody (inhibiting Aδ fibers only) and onabotulinumtoxinA (inhibiting C-fibers only)- suggesting that these agents differ in their mechanisms for the preventive treatment of migraine.

Erenumab for episodic migraine.

In this review, the authors provide an overview of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody used for the preventative treatment of episodic migraine by targeting the CGRP pathway. Randomized controlled trials have shown that erenumab is associated with a statistically significant decrease in monthly migraine days in patients with episodic migraine at monthly doses of 70 or 140mg when given for a period of 9-12 weeks. Post hoc analyses have also shown long-term maintenance of efficacy. Clinical trials have found erenumab at doses of both 70 and 140 mg to have a favorable safety profile. Erenumab faces significant limitationsbecause of its high financial cost. Additional long-term real-world data are needed to understand the role of erenumab in the treatment of migraine.

Optimal Dose of Erenumab for Preventive Treatment of Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background:Erenumab is a novel monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody that is used for the preventive treatment of migraine.Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the overall safety, efficacy, and dose-response relationship of erenumab in patients with episodic migraine and patients with prior migraine treatment failures.Methods:We searched randomized clinical trials on PUBMED, EMBASE database, and Cochrane Library database. A pair-wise meta-analysis and Bayesian network analysis were performed.Results:For efficacy outcomes, the network meta-analysis suggests that in comparison to erenumab 70 mg, participants who received erenumab 140 mg reported a significant decrease in monthly acute Migraine-Specific Medication Days (MSMD) and 50% increase in response rate, and erenumab was most likely to be ranked first for Monthly Migraine Days (MMD), MSMD, and 50% response rate. For safety outcomes, the network meta-analysis has found no significant difference between the 70 mg group and the 140 mg group measured by adverse events and serious adverse events. In the 140 mg erenumab group, a significant decreased in MMD and MSMD and 50% and 75% increased in response rate were reported in patients with ≥ 2 treatment failures compared to placebo. For safety outcomes, no significant difference was found between the 140 mg erenumab group and the placebo group.Conclusion:Erenumab was effective in patients with episodic migraine. A total of 140 mg erenumab was associated with better efficacy outcomes without any increased risk for developing adverse events compared to 70 mg erenumab. Furthermore, 140 mg erenumab was effective in patients with prior migraine treatment failures.