A multicenter, open-label long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: The present study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of rimegepant, an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, in people with migraine. METHODS: This multicenter, long-term, open-label safety study included adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 year history of migraine who were sequentially enrolled into three groups: participants in the first two groups had either 2-8 or 9-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and treated as needed (pro re nata [PRN]) with one rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet up to once per calendar day for 52 weeks (PRN 2-8 and PRN 9-14); a third group, included to collect safety data during higher-frequency dosing, had 4-14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and who took one rimegepant tablet every other day as scheduled dosing plus PRN dosing of one rimegepant tablet for migraine attacks of any severity on nonscheduled dosing days for 12 weeks (every other day (EOD) + PRN). RESULTS: Overall, 1800 participants self-administered rimegepant (PRN 2-8: n = 1033; PRN 9-14: n = 481; EOD + PRN: n = 286). The most common on-treatment adverse events (AEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%) and sinusitis (5.1%). Most AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to rimegepant. Serious AEs considered possibly (n = 1) or unlikely (n = 9) related to rimegepant were reported in ten (0.6%) participants. No signal of drug-induced liver injury because of rimegepant was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg up to once per day as EOD + PRN for 12 weeks or PRN for up to 52 weeks was safe and well tolerated. No signal of hepatotoxicity, potential drug abuse, or medication-overuse headache was identified.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of zavegepant 10 mg nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine in the USA: a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal formulations can provide treatment options for people with migraine in whom oral drugs are ineffective, slow-acting, or intolerable because of nausea and vomiting. Zavegepant, an intranasally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, was previously assessed in a phase 2/3 trial. This phase 3 trial aimed to compare the efficacy, tolerability, safety, and timecourse of response for zavegepant nasal spray with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trial, conducted at 90 academic medical centres, headache clinics, and independent research facilities in the USA, recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with a history of two to eight moderate or severe migraine attacks per month. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to zavegepant 10 mg nasal spray or matching placebo and self-treated a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. Randomisation was stratified by the use or non-use of preventive medication. Study centre personnel entered eligible participants into the study using an interactive web response system that was operated and managed by an independent contract research organisation. All participants, investigators, and the funder were masked to group assignment. The coprimary endpoints, freedom from pain and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h after the treatment dose, were assessed in all randomly assigned participants who took the study medication, had a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity at baseline, and provided at least one evaluable post-baseline efficacy datapoint. Safety was analysed in all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04571060, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Oct 27, 2020, and Aug 20, 2021, 1978 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 1405 participants were eligible (703 were assigned to zavegepant and 702 to placebo), and 1269 were included in the efficacy analysis set (623 in the zavegepant group and 646 in the placebo group). 2 h after the treatment dose, more participants in the zavegepant group than in the placebo group had pain freedom (147 [24%] of 623 participants vs 96 [15%] of 646 participants, risk difference 8·8 percentage points, 95% CI 4·5-13·1; p<0·0001) and freedom from their most bothersome symptom (247 [40%] vs 201 [31%], risk difference 8·7 percentage points, 3·4-13·9; p=0·0012). The most common adverse events in either treatment group (≥2%) were dysgeusia (129 [21%] of 629 in the zavegepant group vs 31 [5%] of 653 in the placebo group), nasal discomfort (23 [4%] vs five [1%]), and nausea (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]). No signal of hepatotoxicity due to zavegepant was identified. INTERPRETATION: Zavegepant 10 mg nasal spray was efficacious in the acute treatment of migraine, with favourable tolerability and safety profiles. Additional trials are needed to establish the long-term safety and consistency of effect across attacks. FUNDING: Biohaven Pharmaceuticals.

Safety of Rimegepant, an Oral CGRP Receptor Antagonist, Plus CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies for Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and tolerability of oral rimegepant when used for acute treatment concomitantly with a monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor (CGRP mAb) for the preventive treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: The efficacy of CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and the small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist rimegepant for acute treatment has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials. Over the past few years, the US Food and Drug Administration has approved 4 CGRP mAbs for the preventive treatment of migraine and 2 small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine. A previous case report of 2 patients receiving concomitant treatment with rimegepant and erenumab suggested that rimegepant may be safely used as acute treatment in patients who are also receiving a preventive regimen involving CGRP mAbs. We report here 13 additional patients with migraine who simultaneously used rimegepant and either erenumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab and assess the rate of on-treatment adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This was a substudy nested within a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study in adults with 2-14 monthly migraine attacks of moderate to severe pain intensity. A subgroup experiencing 2-8 monthly attacks and taking a stable dose of a CGRP mAb also took rimegepant 75 mg as needed up to once daily for acute treatment for 12 weeks. RESULTS: The 13 patients (11 women [85%]; mean age 49.9 years) enrolled in the substudy were being treated with CGRP mAbs (erenumab [n = 7], fremanezumab [n = 4], or galcanezumab [n = 2]). Mean (SD) time in the rimegepant treatment period was 9.6 (4.6) weeks. Mean (SD) 4-week rimegepant exposure was 7.8 (5.5) doses; a total of 224 doses were taken. Five (38%) patients reported ≥1 on-treatment AE. Of these, 2 (15%) patients had mild or moderate nasopharyngitis; no other AEs occurred in ≥2 patients. Three patients had AEs of mild or moderate severity that were considered potentially treatment-related. No patients had serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, or aminotransferase levels >3× the upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION: Rimegepant, when used as an oral acute treatment in patients receiving CGRP mAbs as preventive treatment, was well tolerated; no safety issues were identified. Studies involving larger patient populations are needed to confirm these findings.

Potential for treatment benefit of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist plus monoclonal antibody in migraine therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide the first clinical report that 2 calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) therapies, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist and an anti-CGRP receptor antibody, can be used concomitantly to treat refractory migraine. METHODS: Case reports are presented of 2 patients participating in a long-term safety study of rimegepant 75 mg oral tablets for acute treatment (NCT03266588). After Food and Drug Administration approval of erenumab, both patients started subcutaneous erenumab monthly as allowed per protocol. RESULTS: Patients were women 44 and 36 years of age with ≥2 decades of self-reported suboptimal response to multiple migraine medications. Patient 1 used rimegepant for 6 months and then started erenumab 70 mg subcutaneous monthly. Despite a response to preventive treatment with erenumab, she experienced substantial relief treating 7 of 7 acute attacks with rimegepant and eliminated regular, frequent use of ibuprofen and a caffeinated analgesic. Patient 2 used rimegepant for 60 days before starting erenumab 140 mg subcutaneously monthly. While on erenumab, 9 of 9 attacks treated with rimegepant responded. She stopped near-daily use of injectable ketorolac and diphenhydramine. While using rimegepant alone or together with erenumab, patients reported no related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg may be effective for acute treatment during concomitant erenumab preventive administration. The mechanism underlying the benefits of concomitant use of a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist and an anti-CGRP receptor antibody is unknown and requires further study. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03266588. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with migraine using erenumab, rimegepant is effective for acute treatment.

A Pharmacokinetic Bioequivalence Study Comparing Sublingual Riluzole (BHV-0223) and Oral Tablet Formulation of Riluzole in Healthy Volunteers.

Orally administered riluzole extends survival in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, although it has significant shortcomings (eg, adverse events, dysphagic patients) that limit its utility. BHV-0223 is a Zydis-based orally disintegrating formulation of riluzole designed for sublingual administration that addresses the limitations of conventional tablets. This study assessed the bioequivalence between 40-mg BHV-0223 and standard 50-mg oral riluzole tablets, and the food effect on BHV-0223 pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Overall, 133 healthy subjects received BHV-0223 and riluzole tablets under fasted conditions. Geometric mean ratios for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to time of last nonzero concentration (AUC0-t ) (89.9%; confidence interval [CI], 87.3%-92.5%), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) (89.8%; CI, 87.3%-92.4%), and maximum observed concentration (112.7%; CI, 105.5%-120.4%) all met bioequivalence criteria (80%-125%). Subsequently, 67 subjects received BHV-0223 under fed conditions. The geometric mean ratios of AUC0-t (91.2%; CI, 88.1-94.3%), and AUC0-∞ (92.0%; CI, 89.0-95.1%) were similar, but maximum observed concentration ratios were not within bioequivalence criteria. BHV-0223 was well tolerated. This study demonstrated that 40-mg sublingual BHV-0223 is bioequivalent to 50-mg oral riluzole tablets.

Efficacy of entecavir with or without tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are potent antiviral agents that might have additive or synergistic antiviral activity in treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the efficacy and safety of ETV monotherapy with those of a combination of ETV and TDF. METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter, superiority study of 379 nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive (n = 264) or HBeAg-negative (n = 115) CHB. Subjects were given ETV 0.5 mg (n = 182) or a combination of ETV 0.5 mg and TDF 300 mg (n = 197) for 100 weeks. RESULTS: At week 96, comparable proportions of patients in each study arm achieved the primary end point of a level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA <50 IU/mL (83.2% vs 76.4%; P = .088). Among HBeAg-positive patients, a greater proportion given combination therapy achieved levels of HBV DNA <50 IU/mL than those given ETV alone (80.4% vs 69.8%; P = .046). However, this difference was observed only in patients with baseline levels of HBV DNA ≥ 10(8) IU/mL (79% vs 62%) and not in those with baseline levels of HBV DNA <10(8) IU/mL (83% in both arms). Rates of HBeAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion were comparable between groups, whereas the rate of alanine aminotransferase normalization was greater in the ETV monotherapy group. No HBV variants associated with ETV or TDF resistance were detected. Safety profiles were consistent with previous reports of ETV or TDF monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The antiviral efficacy of ETV monotherapy is comparable to that of ETV plus TDF in a mixed population of nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with CHB (70% HBeAg positive). The combination therapy could provide an incremental benefit to HBeAg-positive patients with baseline levels of HBV DNA ≥ 10(8) IU/mL.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel in patients with unresectable leiomyosarcoma: results of a phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Few chemotherapy agents are active in leiomyosarcoma (LMS), particularly LMS that has progressed after doxorubicin treatment. We sought to determine the response to gemcitabine plus docetaxel among patients with LMS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable LMS of uterine (n = 29) or other (n = 5) primary sites who did not respond to zero to two prior chemotherapy regimens were enrolled onto a phase II study of gemcitabine 900 mg/m(2) intravenously (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor given subcutaneously on days 9 to 15, delivered every 21 days. Patients with prior pelvic radiation received 25% lower doses of both agents. Gemcitabine was delivered over 30 or 90 minutes in cycles 1 and 2 and by 90-minute infusion in all subsequent cycles. Pharmacokinetic studies assessed in vivo differences in gemcitabine concentrations with different rates of infusion. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (median age, 55 years; range, 32 to 74 years) have enrolled. Fourteen had received prior pelvic radiation. Sixteen of 34 patients had progressed after doxorubicin-based therapy; 18 had no prior chemotherapy. Among 34 patients, complete response was observed in three patients and partial response in 15, for an overall response rate of 53% (95% confidence interval, 35% to 70%). Seven patients had stable disease. Fifty percent of patients previously treated with doxorubicin responded. Hematologic toxicity was common (neutropenia: grade 3, 15%; grade 4, 6%; thrombocytopenia: grade 3, 26%; grade 4, 3%), but neutropenic fever (6%) and bleeding events (0%) were rare. The median time to progression was 5.6 months (range, 4 to 10 months). CONCLUSION: Gemcitabine plus docetaxel is tolerable and highly active in treated and untreated patients with LMS.