Sustained Pain Freedom Research Articles

Comparative effects of drug interventions for the acute management of migraine episodes in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo compare all licensed drug interventions as oral monotherapy for the acute treatment of migraine episodes in adults.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase,...

Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium in migraine: A review.

Varied responses to acute migraine medications have been observed, with over one-third (34.5%) of patients reporting insufficient headache relief. Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium, a single, fixed-dose combination tablet comprising sumatriptan 85 mg and naproxen sodium 500 mg, was developed with the rationale of targeting multiple putative mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of migraine to optimise acute migraine care. A narrative review of clinical trials investigating sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for both adults and adolescents was performed in March 2024. Across a total of 14 clinical trials in nine publications, sumatriptan-naproxen sodium offered greater efficacy for 2-h pain freedom (14/14) and sustained pain-free response up to 24 h (13/14) compared with monotherapy and/or placebo for both adult and adolescent study participants with an acceptable and well-tolerated adverse effect profile. Clinical trial data also demonstrates the effectiveness of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium in participants with allodynia, probable migraine, menstrual-related migraine and those with poor responses to acute, non-specific, migraine medication. Multi-mechanistic therapeutic agents offer an opportunity to optimise acute medications by targeting multiple mediators involved in the pathogenesis of migraine. Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium resulted in greater initial and sustained pain freedom, compared with either sumatriptan, naproxen-sodium and/or placebo, for the treatment of single or multiple attacks of migraine across both adult and adolescent study populations.

Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine in adults from China: a subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial

Background Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet (ODT), an oral small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is indicated for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in the United States and other countries. Previously, a large clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China or South Korea. A post hoc subgroup analysis of this trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China.Methods Eligible participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a ≥ 1-year history of migraine, with 2 to 8 attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity per month and < 15 headache days per month during the 3 months before screening. Participants self-administered rimegepant ODT 75 mg or matching placebo to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 h post-dose. Key secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 h post-dose, ability to function normally at 2 h post-dose, use of rescue medication within 24 h post-dose, and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h and 2 to 48 h post-dose. All p values were nominal. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms, vital signs, and routine laboratory tests.ResultsOverall, 1075 participants (rimegepant, n = 538; placebo, n = 537) were included in the subgroup analysis. Rimegepant was more effective than placebo for the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom (18.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0004) and freedom from the MBS (48.0% vs. 31.8%, p < 0.0001), as well as all key secondary endpoints. The incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the rimegepant (15.2%) and placebo (16.4%) groups. No signal of drug-induced liver injury was observed, and no study drug-related serious TEAEs were reported in the rimegepant group.ConclusionsA single dose of rimegepant 75 mg rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China, with safety and tolerability similar to placebo.Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04574362 Date registered: 2020-10-05.Graphical

Identifying Areas of Unmet Need Among People with Migraine with an Inadequate Response to Prior Acute Therapies: Results from the MOMENTUM trial (P7-12.009)

Identifying Areas of Unmet Need Among People with Migraine with an Inadequate Response to Prior Acute Therapies: Results from the MOMENTUM trial (P7-12.009)

Lasmiditan abortive therapy for episodic migraine in Phase II/III randomized clinical trials: A meta-analysis.

Although migraine is common, there are very few treatment options. Recently, lasmiditan, a specific 5-HT1F agonist, has gained approval as abortive therapy for migraine. This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to analyze efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan therapy for episodic migraine. Phase II and Phase III double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating lasmiditan for episodic migraine were searched for from electronic databases. The risk of bias was estimated, data were extracted, and relative risk (RR) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes with a fixed/random effect model. Forest plots and funnel plots were created. TSA graph was plotted. Therapeutic gain with lasmiditan was calculated. Six high-quality RCTs were included with 7122 patients. Compared to placebo, lasmiditan demonstrated a significant proportion of migraineurs reporting freedom from headache, most bothersome symptom, headache response, no disability, global impression "very much/much better" 2 h posttreatment and sustained pain freedom at 24 and 48 h with 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg doses (RR range = 1.26-2.50). 39.3% of patients in the lasmiditan group (RR = 2.43) reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Dizziness, somnolence, paresthesia, fatigue, nausea, vertigo, hypoesthesia, asthenia, muscular weakness, lethargy, and malaise had a high incidence (RR range = 3.16-12.77). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate. No vasoconstriction-related TEAE was reported. Lasmiditan demonstrated efficacy as abortive therapy for episodic migraine with central nervous system-related side effects.

Rimegepant, Ubrogepant, and Lasmiditan in the Acute Treatment of Migraine Examining the Benefit-Risk Profile Using Number Needed to Treat/Harm.

Objectives:To develop and compare benefit-risk profiles for rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) of published clinical trials.Methods:A fixed-effects Bayesian NMA of randomized controlled trials of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine were used to determine risk differences for efficacy and safety outcomes of the 3 treatments compared with pooled placebo. Risk differences were used to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) for pain relief and pain freedom at 2 and 2 to 24 hours and freedom from most bothersome symptoms at 2 hours; and number needed to harm (NNH) for dizziness and nausea, relative to placebo.Results:Results were based on 5 randomized controlled trials (NCT03461757, NCT02828020, NCT02867709, NCT02439320, and NCT02605174). NNT to achieve sustained pain relief at 2 to 24 hours was lowest for rimegepant 75 mg (5; 95% credible interval [Crl]: 4, 7) and ubrogepant 100 mg (5; 95% Crl: 4, 8) and highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (8; 95% Crl: 5, 16). Rimegepant had the lowest NNT to achieve sustained pain freedom at 2 to 24 hours and lasmiditan 50 mg had the highest (7; 95% Crl: 5, 12 vs. 26; 95% Crl: 13, 95). NNH for dizziness and nausea was highest for ubrogepant 25 mg (28; 95% Crl: 15, 62 and 99; 95% Crl: −2580, 2378, respectively). Lasmiditan 200 mg had the lowest NNH for dizziness and rimegepant 75 mg had the lowest NNH for nausea.Conclusions:The benefit-risk profiles of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant may improve clinical decision-making.

Rapid Onset and Sustained Efficacy of Lasmiditan Among Japanese Patients with Migraine: Prespecified Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rapid onset and sustained efficacy are important for acute migraine treatment. Global phase3 trials have demonstrated the early onset and sustained efficacy of the 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. In this prespecified analysis of the MONONOFU study, we assessed the onset and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan in Japanese patients with migraine. MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase2 study conducted in Japan (May 2019-June 2020). Eligible adults with migraine (N = 846; modified intent-to-treat population, N = 682) were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50mg, 100mg, or 200mg, taken orally within 4h of moderate-to-severe migraine onset. Patients recorded headache severity and symptoms predose and 0.5-48h postdose. Sustained and modified sustained pain freedom were defined as patients who were headache pain-free 2h postdose and had no pain (sustained pain freedom) or had mild or no pain (modified sustained pain freedom) at 24 or 48h without rescue/recurrence medications. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression. Patients also recorded the actual time of pain-free and of meaningful pain relief (Kaplan-Meier analysis). Compared with placebo, significantly more lasmiditan-treated (100 or 200mg) patients were headache pain-free, had pain relief, were free of their most bothersome symptom, or had total migraine freedom (no headache or migraine-associated symptoms) within 30-60min. Median time to pain-free was 9.26, 6.88, 2.75, and 2.30h in placebo, 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg lasmiditan groups, respectively. Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with 100 (19.7-29.5%) or 200mg (21.1-35.7%) lasmiditan had sustained or modified sustained pain freedom at 24 or 48h compared with placebo (10.4-15.8%). This prespecified analysis of data from MONONOFU has confirmed that the efficacy of lasmiditan is rapid in onset and sustained in patients with moderate-to-severe migraine in Japan. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03962738).

Migraine treatment with external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation-A randomized controlled trial.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of concurrent non-invasive stimulation of occipital and trigeminal nerves in acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. Non-invasive neuromodulation devices stimulating a single peripheral nerve or anatomic distribution are routinely used by patients with migraine refractory to the first-line drugs or those who opt out of pharmaceutical treatment. Concurrent occipital and trigeminal stimulation was described in an invasive setting, and its safety cost outweighed its efficacy gain. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of an external concurrent occipital and trigeminal device in acute treatment of migraine. This was a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, multi-center trial. Patients 18 years of age or older who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders (2018) diagnostic criteria for migraine with or without aura, reported 1-6 migraine attacks per month, and other headaches no more than 6 days per month were enrolled. Of 131 intention-to-treat participants (67 and 64 in the active and sham groups, respectively), 109 (50 and 59 in the active and sham groups, respectively) treated at least one migraine episode. Reduction of migraine headache (pain relief) 2 h after treatment initiation was the primary efficacy endpoint. Pain relief at 1 h, and pain freedom and relief in most bothersome symptom at 2 h after treatment initiation were the secondary endpoints. Freedom from most bothersome symptom at 2 h and sustained pain freedom 24 h after treatment initiation were among the exploratory endpoints. Sixty percent of participants (30/50) in the active arm reported pain relief at 2 h after initiation of the first eligible treatment (primary outcome) compared to 37% (22/59) in the control arm (difference, 23%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2%-41%; p=0.018). Pain freedom at 2 h without rescue medication was reported by 46% (23/50) of participants in the active arm and by 12% (7/59) of participants in the sham arm (p < 0.001). Pain freedom 2 h after the treatment and, subsequently, at 24 h, was reported by 4.25 times more participants in the active arm (36%; 18/50) than in the sham arm (8%; 5/59). The 28% difference was statistically significant (95% CI, 1%-43%; p < 0.001). A 4.25-fold difference was also observed comparing the proportion of participants free from pain and most bothersome symptom 2 h after the stimulation (47% [17/36] and 11% [5/45] in the active and sham arms, respectively; 95% CI, 14%-54%; p < 0.001). Adverse events were not serious or severe. All study-related events resolved without treatment. External concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a well-tolerated, safe, and effective migraine treatment that provided a fast and durable relief and freedom from migraine pain and associated symptoms in a randomized setting. The observed safety and performance suggest external concurrent occipital and trigeminal neurostimulation is a viable alternative to the currently available acute migraine treatments. clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03631550.

Efficacy and Safety of Lasmiditan as a Novel Acute Treatment in Chinese Patients with Migraine: A Subpopulation Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Phase3 CENTURION Trial.

IntroductionOver the last two decades, there has been no novel acute treatment for migraine to address the large unmet medical need in Chinese patients. Lasmiditan, a novel selective serotonin 1F receptor agonist (ditan), is anticipated to bring clinical benefit in Chinese patients with migraine. The CENTURION study is a multi-country, placebo-controlled phase 3 study designed to assess the first attack efficacy and the consistency of response of lasmiditan in acute treatment of migraine. This subpopulation analysis pooled Chinese patients’ data from the primary cohort and additional extended enrollment cohort which was not published previously. This is the first analysis focusing on lasmiditan’s efficacy and safety in Chinese patients with migraine and aims to provide relevant evidence for Chinese physicians.MethodsPatients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of the three treatment groups for four attacks: (a) lasmiditan 100 mg; (b) lasmiditan 200 mg; or (c) control group. Primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in at least two out of three attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom, and disability freedom.ResultsIn total, 281 Chinese patients (lasmiditan 100 mg, 95; lasmiditan 200 mg, 92; control, 94) were treated for at least one migraine attack. Both doses of lasmiditan showed improvement versus placebo for pain freedom at 2 h after first attack, with lasmiditan 200 mg showing nominal significance. An early onset of effect was observed with lasmiditan versus placebo. Both doses of lasmiditan showed better results for all key secondary endpoints versus placebo. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse event across all groups was dizziness.ConclusionIn the Chinese population, lasmiditan was better than placebo for both primary endpoints and key secondary endpoints with an acceptable safety profile. No new safety signals were detected in the Chinese population. These findings are generally consistent with those observed in the CENTURION study published data and the established product profile.Trial Registration NumberNCT03670810.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-022-00369-1.

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.

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

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

Non-invasive neuromodulation in the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of non-invasive neuromodulation modalities for the treatment of acute migraine. Although pharmacological treatments are the gold standard for the management of acute migraine, some patients may require non-pharmacological treatment options. Non-invasive neuromodulation may provide an alternative, and techniques include transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation (nVNS), non-painful remote electrical stimulation (NRES), and external trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS). This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and LILACS databases. We included randomized controlled clinical trials studying patients with migraine treated with any form of non-invasive neuromodulation. Primary outcome was pain freedom within 2h post-treatment. Secondary outcomes were pain relief within 2-h post-treatment and sustained pain freedom and sustained pain relief 48h post-treatment. Pooled analysis demonstrated a significant effect of non-invasive neuromodulation on pain-free rates within 2h (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.05; P < 0.00001) and pain relief rates within 2h (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.05; P = 0.005) post-treatment. Non-invasive neuromodulation had no significant effect on sustained pain freedom at 48h (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.68 to 3.59; P = 0.29) or sustained pain relief at 48h (RR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.57 to 3.77; P = 0.43) after administration. Neuromodulation has demonstrated some efficacy in acute migraine management and may be considered in the treatment paradigm of acute migraine in patients with contraindications to pharmacological therapies.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study.

A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only. Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication. In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only. Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

New Gepants Against Acute Migraine

Objectives: Recently two calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (ubrogepant and rimegepant) were approved for the acute attack of migraine. This systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed, so as to evaluate and comprehend the effectiveness of both ubrogepant and rimegepant in alleviating the acute attack of migraine. Materials and Methods: An in-depth search was performed through Cochrane library, Pub Med, and clincialtrials.gov, for the period 2015–2019, using the key words: ubrogepant; rimegepant; and acute migraine. The randomized double-blind phase III clinical trials that explored the efficacy of these drugs were considered for inclusion in this review. The outcomes for this review were considered as the proportion of patients who had to resort to rescue medication within 24 h of taking either of the gepant, and the proportion of patients who had achieved sustained pain freedom and relief. In addition, an indirect meta-analysis was also conducted to establish the comparative effectiveness of these drugs. In addition, risk of bias and heterogeneity among the trials were also assessed to ascertain the strength of the trials. Results: A total of five placebo-controlled RCTs were included in this review. Altogether, both drugs demonstrated well in the parameters assessed. Rimegepant was better than ubrogepant, as a lesser proportion of patients used rescue medication by 3.4%, and a significantly higher number of patients achieved sustained pain freedom by 2.1% at 2–24 h. In sustained pain relief at 2–24 h, rimegepant was slightly better than ubrogepant by 0.5%. Hence, rimegepant 75 mg emerged to be better in all outcomes. Conclusions: Both gepants proved to be efficacious in alleviating the acute attack of migraine. Rimegepant displayed superiority over the ubrgepant.

Acute Treatments for Episodic Migraine in Adults

Migraine is common and can be associated with significant morbidity, and several treatment options exist for acute therapy. To evaluate the benefits and harms associated with acute treatments for episodic migraine in adults. Multiple databases from database inception to February 24, 2021. Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews that assessed effectiveness or harms of acute therapy for migraine attacks. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Long term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of intracutaneous zolmitriptan (M207) in the acute treatment of migraine

ObjectiveTo determine the long-term safety and tolerability profile of M207 in the acute treatment of migraine.BackgroundM207 is an investigational microneedle-based system for intracutaneous delivery of zolmitriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks. Following on the positive results of a Phase 2/3 placebo-controlled efficacy study (ZOTRIP), this study was designed to evaluate the safety of this novel product during repeated use for the treatment of migraine attacks.MethodsIn this 6–12 month open-label, multicenter observational study, participants used an eDiary to record headache symptoms and adverse events at specified intervals up to 48 h following treatment of a qualifying attack with M207 3.8 mg (intracutaneous zolmitriptan). Participants underwent clinical evaluations at specified intervals up to 12 months.ResultsAmong 335 participants who treated ≥1 migraine attack, 257 completed 6 months and 127 completed 1 year of treatment. The most common reason for withdrawal from the study was a low frequency of reported attacks post randomization. Overall, 5963 migraine attacks were treated. Most participants (96%) experienced at least 1 adverse event, the vast majority of which concerned the application site, and > 95% of which were mild. Fifteen participants (4%) withdrew due to adverse events; 4 withdrew due to 7 application site reactions, 6 of which were mild.Participants achieved pain freedom in 2477/5617 (44%) of attacks, most bothersome symptom freedom in 3315/5330 (62%) of attacks, and pain relief 2 h post-dose in 4552/5617 (81%) of attacks. Sustained pain freedom 2–24 h was seen in 1761/4698 (38%) of attacks, and 2–48 h in 1534/4429 (35%) of attacks.ConclusionsThe majority of participants experienced cutaneous adverse reactions such as application site erythema, swelling, and bleeding, and most reactions were scored as mild. These results are consistent with what was observed in the single migraine attack treatment ZOTRIP trial indicating that M207 is well tolerated in the setting of longer-term repeated use. Efficacy findings were also similar to those in the ZOTRIP trial.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov on September 13, 2017 (NCT03282227).

Lasmiditan efficacy in migraine attacks with mild vs. moderate or severe pain

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of lasmiditan (LTN) in treating migraine attacks of mild vs. moderate or severe pain intensity. Methods Pooled data from two single-attack, placebo-controlled studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT02605174]), and a prospective, randomized, open-label study (GLADIATOR [NCT02565186]) were assessed. Efficacy measures included the proportion of attacks with 2-h pain freedom (PF), 2-h most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, and 24-h sustained pain freedom (SPF). Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the proportion of PF, SPF, or MBS freedom outcomes among attacks treated at mild, moderate, or severe pain. Results In SAMURAI and SPARTAN, most treated attacks were of moderate (N = 2768) or severe (N = 1147) intensity, compared to mild (N = 65). Numerically greater 2-h PF and 24-h SPF response rates were observed in attacks treated at mild compared to moderate or severe pain. Analysis of GLADIATOR data included 273 (1.5%), 11,644 (65.1%), and 5948 (33.3%) attacks treated when pain was mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. In general, a significantly greater proportion of attacks treated at mild pain achieved 2-h PF and MBS freedom, as well as 24-h SPF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in LTN treatment groups were similar regardless of baseline head pain intensity. Conclusions Data from two placebo-controlled, single-attack trials, and an open-label study including treatment of multiple attacks, suggested a tendency to relatively better efficacy outcomes when LTN treatment was initiated at mild vs. moderate to severe pain. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship of lasmiditan outcomes to the time of administration in the course of a migraine attack.

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 5HT1F 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.

Ditans vs Gepants: A Systematic Review and Indirect Network Meta-Analysis for Comparative Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

An acute attack of migraine, incapacitates the migraineurs, and is widely prevalent. And to warden off its symptoms, recently two groups of drugs have been approved and launched. The aim of this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis is to evaluate and summarize the effectiveness of these pharmacological interventions in managing the aforesaid disease. An extensive literature search was done through Cochrane library, Pub Med, clincialtrials.gov, for a period of 5 years (2015-2020), using key words: lasmiditan; ubrogepant; rimegepant; and acute migraine. Randomized double-blind phase III clinical trials, published in English language, were included which explored the efficacy and safety of these drugs. The outcomes of this meta-analysis included proportion of patients' headache, most bothersome symptoms free, and no disability at all at 2 h post-dose, with sustained pain freedom 2-24 h, and experiencing any adverse event. An indirect network meta-analysis was also conducted to determine the comparative effectiveness of these drugs. A total of seven RCTs involving 7266 patients were included. In general, the new drugs demonstrated better result in all the efficacy parameters. The adverse events were observed in treatment group compared to placebo. While in the indirect comparison, lasmiditan emerged to be superior in all the outcomes, except for sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (rimegepant was better). The adverse events were more with lasmiditan. All the newer drugs have shown significant improvement in the outcomes analyzed. Lasmiditan appears to be superior among the newer drugs in efficacy; however it has more adverse effects.

Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Pooled Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability From the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II Phase 3 Randomized Trials.

IntroductionUbrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant were demonstrated in two pivotal phase 3, single-attack, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II).MethodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the ACHIEVE trials to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg (the only dose evaluated in both trials) versus placebo across a large population of participants with migraine. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (including photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 h post dose. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 2 h post dose, sustained pain relief and pain freedom from 2 to 24 h, and absence of specific migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post dose.ResultsA total of 2240 eligible participants were randomized to placebo (n = 1122) or ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 1118) in the ACHIEVE trials. Pain freedom at 2 h was reported in 13.0% of participants in the pooled placebo group and 20.5% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34, 2.22; P < 0.001). Absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 h was reported by 27.6% in the pooled placebo group and by 38.7% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.37, 2.05; P < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) within 48 h after the initial or optional second dose were reported by 11.5 and 11.2% of participants in the pooled placebo and pooled ubrogepant 50 mg groups, respectively. The most common AE was nausea (1.8 and 1.9%, respectively). No serious AEs related to treatment or discontinuations due to AEs were reported.ConclusionThese results further support the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: ACHIEVE I: NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II: NCT02867709Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00234-7.