Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Participants With Episodic Migraine in Whom 2-4 Prior Preventive Treatments Had Failed: LIBERTY 3-Year Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The LIBERTY study assessed the efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine (EM) and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. The results have been presented after 3 years of erenumab exposure in its open-label extension phase (OLEP). METHODS: Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could enter the OLEP and receive 140 mg of erenumab once monthly for 3 years. The main outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), the mean MMD change from baseline, and tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 240/246 (97.6%) participants entered the OLEP and 168/240 (70.0%) completed the study (85/118 continuing erenumab [n = 1 lost during follow-up]; 83/122 switching from placebo [n = 2 lost during follow-up]). In the overall population, 79/151 participants (52.3%) with valid data points achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs at week 168 (i.e., responders). In the continuous erenumab group, 35/117 participants (29.9%) were ≥50% responders at week 12 of the DBTP and 26/35 (74.3%) remained ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of the 82/117 participants (70.1%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the continuous erenumab group, 17/82 (20.7%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of 103/120 participants (85.8%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the placebo-erenumab group, 42/103 (40.8%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits after switching to erenumab. Overall, the mean (SD) MMD change from baseline showed sustained improvement over 3 years (-4.4 [3.9] days at week 168). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (per 100 person-years) were nasopharyngitis (28.8), influenza (7.5), and back pain (5.8). Overall, 9.6% (3.9 per 100 person-years) and 6.7% (2.7 per 100 person-years) of participants reported events of treatment-emergent hypertension and constipation, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile remained consistent with earlier studies. DISCUSSION: Erenumab (140 mg) showed sustained efficacy over 3 years in participants with EM and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. No new safety signals were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03096834.

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.

A Drug-Drug Interaction Study to Evaluate the Impact of Rimegepant on OCT2- and MATE1-Mediated Transport of Metformin in Healthy Participants.

Rimegepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for migraine treatment. This phase 1, open-label, single-center, fixed-sequence study evaluated the effect of rimegepant on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of metformin. Twenty-eight healthy participants received metformin 500 mg twice daily from Days 1 to 4 and Days 7 to 10, and once daily on Days 5 and 11. Rimegepant, 75 mg tablet, was administered once daily from Days 9 to 12. At pre-specified time points, plasma metformin concentration, serum glucose levels, and safety and tolerability were evaluated. A 16% increase in the area under the plasma metformin concentration-time curve (AUC) for 1 dosing interval (AUC0-τ,ss), a statistically insignificant increase in maximum and minimum steady-state metformin concentration (Cmax,ss and Cmin,ss), and a decrease in metformin renal clearance were observed on Day 11 following metformin-rimegepant coadministration compared with metformin alone; however, the changes were not clinically relevant. Additionally, coadministration of rimegepant with metformin did not induce clinically meaningful change in the maximum observed glucose concentration (Gmax) or AUCgluc compared with metformin alone. Overall, rimegepant and metformin coadministration did not result in clinically relevant changes in metformin PK, renal clearance, or the antihyperglycemic effects of metformin. Rimegepant is considered safe for use with metformin.

Identification of novel signal of Raynaud's phenomenon with Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide(CGRP) antagonists using data mining algorithms and network pharmacological approaches.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists are recently approved for the treatment of migraine. AIM: The main aim of the current study was to find out the association of CGRP antagonists with RP using data mining algorithms integrated with network pharmacological approaches. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The individual case safety reports were extracted using OpenVigil2.1-MedDRA-V17 (2004Q1-2022Q3), the United States Adverse Event Reporting System (US FAERS). The data mining algorithms i.e. reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence and proportionality reporting ratio (PRR) with associated chi-square value were calculated along with a minimum of three ICSRs to identify the signal. Further, the network was constructed using Cytoscape 3.7.2. Finally, molecular docking was performed using Glide, Schrodinger Inc. RESULTS: The PRR ≥2 with a linked chi-square value ≥4, add up of co-occurrence ≥3, and a lower limit of 95% confidence interval of ROR exceeding 2 indicates a positive signal of RP. Further, the network pharmacological and molecular docking results have shown the involvement of insulin-like growth factor 1-receptor (IGF1R) pathways. CONCLUSION: The RP is recognized as a novel signal with all CGRP antagonists.

Metabolic and toxicological considerations regarding CGRP mAbs and CGRP antagonists to treat migraine in COVID-19 patients: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine pharmacological therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), including monoclonal antibodies and gepants, have shown clinical effect and optimal tolerability. Interactions between treatments of COVID-19 and CGRP-related drugs have not been reviewed. AREAS COVERED: An overview of CGRP, a description of the characteristics of each CGRP-related drug and its response predictors, COVID-19 and its treatment, the interactions between CGRP-related drugs and COVID-19 treatment, COVID-19 and vaccination-induced headache, and the neurological consequences of Covid-19. EXPERT OPINION: Clinicians should be careful about using gepants for COVID-19 patients, due to the potential drug interactions with drugs metabolized via CYP3A4 cytochrome. In particular, COVID-19 treatment (especially nirmatrelvir packaged with ritonavir, as Paxlovid) should be considered cautiously. It is advisable to stop or adjust the dose (10 mg atogepant when used for episodic migraine) of gepants when using Paxlovid (except for zavegepant). CGRP moncolconal antibodies (CGRP-mAbs) do not have drug - drug interactions, but a few days' interval between a COVID-19 vaccination and the use of CGRP mAbs is recommended to allow the accurate identification of the possible adverse effects, such as injection site reaction. Covid-19- and vaccination-related headache are known to occur. Whether CGRP-related drugs would be of benefit in these circumstances is not yet known.

A Brief Review of Gepants.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gepants are small molecules that antagonize calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptors. Due to their favorable side effect profile and versatility in treating headaches acutely and preventively, gepants are preferred over triptans. We will cover the indications for the four FDA-approved gepants in adults: rimegepant, atogepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant. This review will illustrate how gepants will continue to revolutionize the acute and preventive treatment of headaches. RECENT FINDINGS: Gepants are now available in oral tablet, dissolving tablet, and intra-nasal spray formulations. Recent studies have shown promising utility in treating the pre-headache or prodromal phase. They have favorable tolerability, no evidence for association with medication overuse, and remain a safer alternative in those who have cerebrovascular risk factors. Additional research is needed to explore occurrence of Raynaud's phenomenon in participants treated with gepants, as it has been associated with CGRP monoclonal antibodies, but are not extensively studied in gepants. Gepants are expected to play a significant role in the next generation of migraine treatments.

[Cardiovascular safety of new drugs for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine: gepants and ditans]. / Seguridad cardiovascular de los nuevos fármacos para el tratamiento agudo y preventivo de la migraña: gepantes y ditanes.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is a prevalent neurological condition characterised by disabling headache attacks. In recent decades, new drugs have been developed specifically for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine based on its pathophysiology. These include calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists (CGRP) (gepants) and selective serotoninergic 5-HT1F receptor agonists (ditans). CGRP is a neuropeptide released by trigeminal terminals that acts as a vasodilator, causes neurogenic inflammation and thus generates pain and sensitisation in migraine. It also has a powerful vasodilatory action and is involved in cardiovascular regulation, which is why numerous studies are under way to assess the vascular safety of acting against CGRP. The high selectivity of ditans for the serotoninergic 5-HT1F receptor with a low affinity for other serotoninergic receptors seems to translate into little or no vasoconstrictor effect, which is mediated by the activation of 5-HT1B receptors. DEVELOPMENT: The aim of our study is to review the cardiovascular safety demonstrated by these new drugs for the treatment of migraine by analysing the evidence published to date. We conducted a literature search in the PubMed database and a review of clinical trials published at clinicaltrial.gov. We included literature reviews, meta-analyses and clinical trials in English and Spanish. We analysed reported cardiovascular adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results published to date, we can conclude that the cardiovascular safety profile of these new treatments is favourable. Longer-term safety studies are needed to confirm these results.

TITLE: Seguridad cardiovascular de los nuevos fármacos para el tratamiento agudo y preventivo de la migraña: gepantes y ditanes.Introducción. La migraña es una patología neurológica prevalente caracterizada por ataques de cefalea incapacitantes. En las últimas décadas se han desarrollado nuevos fármacos específicos para el tratamiento agudo y preventivo de la migraña basados en su fisiopatología. Entre éstos se encuentran los antagonistas del péptido relacionado con el gen de la calcitonina (CGRP) (gepantes) y los agonistas selectivos del receptor serotoninérgico 5-HT1F (ditanes). El CGRP es un neuropéptido liberado por los terminales trigeminales que actúa como vasodilatador, provoca inflamación neurógena y, con ello, generación del dolor y sensibilización en la migraña. Posee, además, una potente acción vasodilatadora y participa en la regulación cardiovascular, razón por la cual se están llevando a cabo numerosos estudios que evalúan la seguridad vascular de actuar contra el CGRP. La alta selectividad de los ditanes para el receptor serotoninérgico 5-HT1F con una baja afinidad para otros receptores serotoninérgicos parece traducirse en un bajo o nulo efecto vasoconstrictor, que es mediado por la activación de los receptores 5-HT1B. Desarrollo. Nuestro objetivo es revisar la seguridad cardiovascular demostrada por estos nuevos fármacos para el tratamiento de la migraña analizando la evidencia publicada. Realizamos una búsqueda bibliográfica en la base de datos PubMed y una revisión de los ensayos clínicos publicados en clinicaltrial.gov. Incluimos revisiones bibliográficas, metaanálisis y ensayos clínicos en español e inglés. Analizamos los efectos adversos cardiovasculares informados. Conclusiones. Basándonos en los resultados hasta ahora publicados, podemos concluir que el perfil de seguridad cardiovascular de estos nuevos tratamientos es favorable. Para confirmar estos resultados son necesarios estudios de seguridad a más largo plazo.

Is the right way to go in between? : Rimegepant as needed provides preventive benefit. A comment on: monthly migraine days, tablet utilization, and quality of life associated with rimegepant-post hoc results from an open label safety study (BHV3000-201).

In the study by Johnston et al., gepants were meant to be taken to treat emergent migraine. It is tempting to speculate what the effect would be if patients were instructed to take a gepant as needed (PRN) or even prior to headache onset. While the latter sounds irrational at first glance, several studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients are quite proficient in predicting (or simply due to premonitory symptoms noting) their migraine attacks prior to the onset of actual headache. The study by Johnston et al. provides food for thought along these lines and should encourage us to further investigate flexible patient-controlled CGRP blocking as a third, intermediate and potentially cost-effective avenue between acute/rescue treatment and prevention/prophylaxis.

Evaluation of vascular risk in patients with migraine with and without aura treated with erenumab: Post hoc analysis of pooled long-term clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk. BACKGROUND: Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre-existing CV risk factors. METHODS: Data pooled from four double-blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10-year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no-risk-factors, low-risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate-risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high-risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE). RESULTS: There was no apparent difference between placebo- (N = 1032) and erenumab-treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1-3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long-term analysis. Erenumab-treated patients with high and moderate 10-year CV risk (N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double-blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low-risk erenumab group (N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long-term extensions of up to 5 years (N = 2499; 3482 patient-years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure-adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient-years) for no risk factor (N = 1805), low (N = 492), moderate (N = 121), and high (N = 81) 10-year CV risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10-year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.

Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct comparisons of the tolerability and safety of migraine preventive treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway are lacking. This study aimed to compare the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and gepants in migraine prevention. METHODS: A network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) and gepants (atogepant, rimegepant) in migraine prevention was performed. Primary outcomes were treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and individual adverse events. RESULTS: We included 19 randomized controlled trials, comprising 14,584 patients. Atogepant 120 mg (OR 2.22, 95% CI [1.26, 3.91]) and galcanezumab 240 mg (OR 1.63, 95% CI [1.33, 2.00]) showed the largest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events compared to placebo. While eptinezumab 30 mg had greater odds of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR 2.62, 95% CI [1.03,6.66]). No significant differences in serious adverse events were found between active treatments and placebo. Eptinezumab was associated with the lowest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events compared to placebo, whereas erenumab was associated with the lowest odds of any adverse events and quarterly fremanezumab with the lowest odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway and gepants are a safe and well tolerated option for migraine prevention.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. METHODS: A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination. CONCLUSION: The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Erenumab in Patients with Migraine: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several studies on use of erenumab for migraine treatment have been published over recent years. However, its long-term safety and effectiveness have not been consistently established in the literature yet. We aimed to perform a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the long-term safety and effectiveness of erenumab for the treatment of migraine headaches. METHODS: Long-term follow-up was defined as ≥ 1 year. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to 14 June 2022 for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Fourteen studies, comprising 3574 patients, were included. The total follow-up period ranged from 48 to 268 weeks (i.e., 1 year to 5.6 years). Pooled estimate rates for all adverse events (AEs) were 63% (95% CI 46-78); for serious AEs, 3% (95% CI 1-7); and for AEs leading to discontinuation of erenumab, 3% (95% CI 2-5). Reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) was -6.98 (95% CI -8.90 to -5.05) and in migraine-specific medication days (MSMDs) was - 6.09 (95% CI - 9.43 to - 2.75). More than half (57%; 95% CI 51-63) and around one-third (35%; 95% CI 28-42) of patients presented with reductions of ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% in MMDs, respectively. Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score was decreased by -9.68 points (95% CI - 12.03 to - 7.34). Nine studies were considered of poor methodological quality and five of fair quality. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab has a favorable safety profile, with a low incidence of serious AEs, and sustained efficacy over ≥1 year of follow-up in the treatment of migraine.

Different dosage regimens of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a worldwide epidemic neurological disorder that has a significant influence on the quality of life. Migraine attacks are considered to be related to a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling molecule, and anti-CGRP medications are used to abort and prevent migraine attacks. Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the CGRP receptor, is the first migraine preventive medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. In the present study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of erenumab. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab as a migraine preventive treatment compared to a placebo. METHODS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blind trials were searched through MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2022. The efficacy outcomes we collected include changes from baseline on monthly migraine days, monthly acute migraine-specific medication days, ≥50% responder rate, ≥75% responder rate, and 100% responder rate at week 12. Safety outcomes include treatment emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and any adverse event that leads to discontinuation of treatment. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registry number: CRD42022338861). RESULT: In all eight included trials, we found that erenumab (28, 70, and 140 mg) is very effective and has a significantly greater reduction in baseline monthly migraine days (28 mg: mean difference [MD] = -1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.0 to -0.2, p = 0.020; 70 mg: MD = -1.4, 95% CI: -1.8 to -1.1, p < 0.001, I2  = 26%; 140 mg: MD = -1.8, 95% CI: -2.1 to -1.4, p < 0.001, I2  = 0%) than placebo at week 12, especially with 140 mg. Otherwise, we found that there were no statistical differences in the occurrence of adverse events (7 mg: risk ratio [RR] = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.2, p = 0.570; 21 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.2, p = 0.730; 28 mg: RR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.1, p = 0.340; 70 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0, p = 0.230, I2  = 0%; 140 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.1, p = 0.880, I2  = 40%) between the erenumab and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we found that erenumab, especially at the dose of 140 mg, is an effective and well-tolerated preventive treatment for migraine.

Focus on zavegepant: the first intranasal third-generation gepant.

Migraine is the leading cause of years lived with disability in people under 50 and its burden is increased by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-driven chronicity. Newly approved small molecules that antagonize the CGRP receptor, gepants, have advanced from the hepatotoxic first-generation telcagepant to third-generation intranasal zavegepant; during this process of drug development, rimegepant, ubrogepant and atogepant, which are orally administered, have been launched and approved for clinical use with no warning for hepatotoxicity. Real-world, long-term postmarketing data about the efficacy and safety of gepants are awaited. The aim of the present drug evaluation study was to provide an overview of the novel, third-generation intranasal zavegepant, encompassing its development and future perspectives.

Migraine is the leading cause of years lived with disability in people under 50 and the frequent chronicity of the disease increases its global burden. Recent research prompted the discovery of novel modulators fundamentally involved in the pathogenesis and chronicity of migraine, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). This induced the development of new drugs able to antagonize the CGRP receptor, called gepants. The purpose of the present study was to offer a monograph on the novel, third-generation gepant, zavegepant. It is the first gepant to be administered via the intranasal route. Here, the authors report the available data on the efficacy and safety of zavegepant and investigate future perspectives.

A phase IV clinical trial of gastrointestinal motility in adult patients with migraine before and after initiation of a calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand (galcanezumab) or receptor (erenumab) antagonist.

OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of an initial dose of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) antagonists on gastrointestinal (GI) motility in patients with migraine and to explore if the mechanistic difference contributes to GI adverse events (AEs). BACKGROUND: Different frequencies of constipation have been observed between CGRP mAbs that target the ligand (galcanezumab [GMB]) or receptor (erenumab [ERE]). METHODS: Patients (n = 65) with migraine without significant GI symptoms were enrolled in a multi-center, single-blind phase IV clinical trial (NCT04294147) and randomized 1:1 to receive GMB (240 mg; n = 33) or ERE (140 mg; n = 32). GI whole and regional transit times were assessed using a wireless motility capsule 1 week before and 2 weeks after mAb administration. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in colonic transit time (CTT) within each treatment group. Other measures included GI Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), and spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) evaluation. AEs were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics indicated significant GI transit time variability with minimal GI reported symptoms. While not statistically significant, a numerical mean increase in CTT was observed in ERE patients (n = 28, mean [SD] at baseline: 33.8 [29.4] h; least square [LS] mean [SE] change: 5.8 [5.7] h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.7 to 17.2, p = 0.320), while GMB decreased CTT (n = 31, mean [SD] at baseline: 29.3 [24.5] h; LS mean [SE] change: -5.4 [5.4] h, 95% CI -16.2 to 5.5, p = 0.328) compared to baseline. No meaningful changes were observed in other regional transit times. ERE significantly reduced BSFS (LS mean [SE] score -0.5 [0.2], p = 0.004) and SBM (LS mean [SE] -1.2 [0.5], p = 0.0120), and increased GSRS-constipation compared to baseline (LS mean [SE] score 0.3 [0.1], p = 0.016). GMB increased GSRS-constipation (LS mean [SE] score 0.4 [0.1], p = 0.002). There were no discontinuations due to or serious AEs. A higher percentage of treatment-emergent AEs were reported with ERE than GMB (ERE: nine of 32 [28.1%] versus GMB: three of 33 [9.1%]), with constipation the most frequently reported (ERE: five of 32 [15.6%] versus GMB one of 33 [3.0%]). CONCLUSION: While the primary endpoint of this study was not met, secondary and tertiary endpoints support a within- and between-treatment change in GI effects suggesting possible mechanistic differences between ligand (GMB) and receptor (ERE) antagonism.

Safety and tolerability of erenumab in individuals with episodic or chronic migraine across age groups: a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine. There exists an unmet need to establish the safety of erenumab in older individuals, in view of existing multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, and age-related physiological changes. This pooled analysis of five large migraine-prevention studies examined the safety of erenumab stratified across age groups, particularly in older populations. METHODS: Pooled and age-stratified analysis of safety data from the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of five randomized, placebo-controlled Phase 2 and 3 studies of erenumab in participants with episodic or chronic migraine across the age groups < 40 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, and ≥ 60 years was completed. The safety of erenumab across age groups was determined by assessing safety endpoints including treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, and events leading to study drug discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 3345 participants across five studies were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 1359), erenumab 70 mg (n = 1132) or erenumab 140 mg (n = 854); 3176 (94.9%) completed the DBTP, and 169 (5.1%) discontinued, mainly due to participant decision (110; 3.3%). Overall, 1349 (40.6%), 1122 (33.8%), and 850 (25.6%) participants received at least one dose of placebo, erenumab 70 mg, and erenumab 140 mg, respectively. Incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was similar across all age groups for both doses of erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) and placebo (< 40 years, 44.0% vs 44.4%; 40-49 years, 42.5% vs 49.2%; 50-59 years, 46.5% vs 41.6%; ≥ 60 years, 43.8% vs 59.4%). Incidence of treatment-emergent serious AEs overall, and stratified by age groups for both doses and placebo was low (< 40 years, 0.9% vs 1.2%; 40-49 years, 1.7% vs 1.9%; and 50-59 years, 1.6% vs 1.1%), with no serious AEs reported in participants aged ≥ 60 years. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg) exhibited a similar safety profile compared with placebo across age groups in individuals with episodic or chronic migraine, with no increased emergence of events due to age. Erenumab was well tolerated in older participants with multiple comorbidities, polypharmacy, and age-related physiological changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02066415, NCT02456740, NCT02483585, NCT03096834, NCT03333109.

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

OBJECTIVE: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists have been suggested as novel treatments for acute migraine. This study aimed to use meta-analysis to compare the safety and tolerability of five existing oral CGRP receptor antagonists (BI44370TA, MK-3207, rimegepant, telcagepant, and ubrogepant) with that of a placebo or triptans against acute migraine. METHODS: Five prominent databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials on this topic. The primary safety outcomes of interest were any adverse events (AEs) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and secondary outcomes were individual events, namely diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, fatigue, nausea, paresthesia, somnolence, upper abdominal pain, and vomiting. RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were examined in detail. Although, compared to placebo, oral CGRP receptor antagonists significantly increased the incidence of any AEs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-1.23), there was no difference in the incidence of TRAEs (RR = 1.18; 95% CI = 1.00-1.38). Moreover, CGRP receptor antagonists were safer than triptans with respect to primary safety outcomes, such as any AEs (RR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.63-0.98) and TRAEs (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.58-0.79). CONCLUSION: Despite oral CGRP receptor antagonists posing a significantly higher risk of AEs when compared to placebo, CGRP receptor antagonists have a favorable safety profile compared to triptans. Our findings inform strategies to enhance safety and tolerability in the treatment of acute migraine.

Real-world long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine: a 52-week, single-center, prospective, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that erenumab is effective and well-tolerated for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. To extend the results from clinical trials, we assessed the real-world efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine from the outpatient clinic at the Danish Headache Center. METHODS: A 52-week, single-center, prospective, observation study of erenumab in adults with chronic migraine who are eligible for treatment with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor in Denmark. The primary outcome was defined as proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline to weeks 9-12. RESULTS: A total of 300 adult patients with chronic migraine were enrolled and received at least one dose of erenumab. At baseline, the mean (SD) number of monthly headache days was 23 ± 4.9 and mean number of MMDs was 16.8 ± 6.4. Of 300 enrolled patients, 273 (91.0%) patients completed 12 weeks of treatment, and 119 (39.7%) completed 52 weeks of treatment. The number of patients who achieved ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs from baseline to weeks 9-12 was 195 (71.4%) of 273 patients. Sustained ≥ 30% reduction in MMDs at all assessment periods throughout the 52-week treatment period was achieved by 102 (34%) of 300 patients. Adverse events occurred in 220 (73.3%) out of 300 patients. The most common adverse event was constipation. Treatment discontinuation due to lack of tolerability occurred in 41 (13.7%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with chronic migraine and previous failure of medications for migraine prevention, erenumab was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine in whom prior preventive treatments had failed: A subgroup analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in the subgroup of patients with chronic migraine (CM) in whom prior preventive treatments had failed (TF) (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) and never failed (preventive naïve or prior preventive treatments had not failed), using the data from a 52-week, open-label treatment period (OLTP) of the parent study. BACKGROUND: Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to and inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor. There are limited long-term data evaluating the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed. METHODS: Patients who had completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period (DBTP) in the parent study were eligible to participate in the 52-week OLTP, during which they received erenumab every 4 weeks. The TF subgroups (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) were not mutually exclusive; patients in whom prior preventive treatments from ≥3 medication categories had failed were also counted in the ≥2 and ≥1 medication categories. Endpoints included monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD), achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction from baseline in MMD, and exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs; per 100 patient-years). RESULTS: Erenumab treatment provided sustained mean reductions in MMD and MSMD relative to the parent study baseline throughout the 52 weeks of the OLTP across all TF subgroups. At Week 52, the mean MMD change was -8.6 (SD 6.6) (baseline: 18.4 [SD 4.5] days) in the ≥1 TF subgroup. A post hoc completer analysis (52 weeks [OLTP] erenumab) showed that compared with erenumab 70 mg, the 140 mg dose was associated with numerically greater reductions in the mean MMD (Week 40: -8.6 and -7.2 days; Week 52: -9.7 and -7.9 days [≥1 TF subgroup]) and a higher proportion of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response thresholds across all subgroups at Weeks 40 and 52. Overall the exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of AEs did not increase during the OLTP versus the DBTP (≥1 TF subgroup: 141.9/100 versus 317.9/100 patient-years), and no new safety signals occurred. CONCLUSION: The long-term treatment with erenumab was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed, with numerically greater treatment effects for 140 mg versus 70 mg.

The use of erenumab for migraine prophylaxis during pregnancy: A case report and narrative review.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of a woman who continued erenumab for migraine prophylaxis throughout her pregnancy and to review the literature for pregnancy safety data for the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor and ligand-directed therapies currently approved for migraine prophylaxis in the United States. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common headache disorder that can be significantly disabling. Many people experiencing migraine seek out preventative therapies to improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, currently approved prophylactic agents may not be safe to use during pregnancy, potentially limiting the use of these agents in women of childbearing potential. As the newest class of prophylactic agents for migraine, CGRP agents have limited pregnancy safety data in humans. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted through the PubMed database using the terms pregnancy and either erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, rimegepant, or atogepant. Additional sources of information such as prescribing information, assessment reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and manufacturer data were sought. RESULTS: One case report was found in the literature documenting a human pregnancy with no adverse effects in the baby after exposure to erenumab. However, the last dose was administered in the second week of pregnancy and discontinued thereafter. The evaluation of 92 safety reports describing maternal exposure prior to or during pregnancy to either erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab was located. Incidence of miscarriage and congenital anomalies appear to be similar to rates in the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The use of erenumab during pregnancy in our patient resulted in no known harm to the child. This case is unique in that the mother continued to receive erenumab throughout the pregnancy. Safety data is lacking regarding the use of these agents during pregnancy, despite their frequent use in women of childbearing potential.