Doubtful use of placebo following placebo in recent controlled trials of lasmiditan and ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine attacks.

PURPOSE: In four large controlled trials with lasmiditan and ubrogepant placebo was administered in the first step to demonstrate an effect on migraine attack. In the same trials the investigators also asked the question: is a second dose of the drug effective in non-responders to the first dose? In this phase patients who received placebo in the first phase of the trial again after 2 hours received another dose of placebo. CONCLUSION: To be ethical, clinical research requires balancing rigorous science with the protection of human subjects; and it is, in our view, questionable whether placebo was used with "scientific rigor" in the second step of these trials, and this design is not recommended.

Naratriptan is as effective as sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks when used properly. A mini-review.

BACKGROUND: Naratriptan, marketed in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, is generally regarded as a less-effective triptan with a slower onset of action than most other triptans in the treatment of migraine attacks. In this review, naratriptan will be compared with sumatriptan, the standard triptan. METHODS: Papers on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics and results from comparative clinical trials with oral and subcutaneous naratriptan versus other triptans were retrieved from PubMed. RESULTS: Naratriptan and sumatriptan have similar effects in relevant animal models. In a randomized controlled trial, oral naratriptan 2.5 mg is less effective than oral sumatriptan 100 mg after both 2 h and 4 h. In contrast, oral naratriptan 10 mg has a similar time-effect curve as oral sumatriptan 100 mg, in both its steepness and the efficacy at 2 h and 4 h. Subcutaneous naratriptan 10 mg (88% pain free at 2 h) was in one trial superior to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg (55% pain free at 2 h). CONCLUSION: Naratriptan was marketed for the treatment of migraine attacks as the "gentle triptan" in a low oral dose of 2.5 mg, a dose with no more adverse events than placebo. This low dose results in the slow onset of action and low efficacy of oral naratriptan, but in high doses oral naratriptan is similar to oral sumatriptan. Based on one randomized controlled trial, subcutaneous naratriptan has probably the greatest effect of any triptan.

Onset of action in placebo-controlled migraine attacks trials: A literature review and recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Migraine patients want acute treatment to provide complete relief of the migraine attack within 30 minutes. Traditionally, "speed of onset of effect" is evaluated by estimating the time-point for first statistical separation of drug and placebo. The estimated onset of effect can be a few percent difference of patients being pain free in very large randomised, controlled trials. This difference, however, can be clinically irrelevant. METHODS: Placebo-controlled randomised, controlled trials with pain freedom results from 30 min to 2-4 hours were retrieved from the literature. For each time-point, the therapeutic gain (drug minus placebo) (TG) was calculated. Therapeutic gain for being pain free of 5% was chosen for the definition of "onset of action", since this is approximately 1/3 of the 16% TG and 1/4 of 21% of TG for sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 22 time-effect curves based on randomised, controlled trials were analysed. Based on the "onset of action" of 5% pain freedom, the evaluated drugs and administration forms can be classified as follows: i) Early time to onset, ≤30 min (three randomised, controlled trials); ii) medium time to onset, 60 min (nine randomised, controlled trials); iii) delayed time to onset, 90-120 min (10 randomised, controlled trials). CONCLUSION: Only three non-oral administration forms with a triptan (subcutaneous sumatriptan and nasal zolmitriptan) resulted in an "onset of action" at ≥30 min; in the future, early onset of action should be a priority in the development of new drugs or new administration-forms for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Erenumab prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and not just migraine days: Post-hoc analyses of a phase III study.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of erenumab on monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, and attack duration in patients with episodic migraine to investigate whether erenumab actually prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and/or shortens them. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the data from the STRIVE study, in 955 patients with episodic migraine. Relative changes from baseline to mean over months 4, 5 and 6 of the double-blind treatment phase in monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks and mean migraine attack duration were assessed. RESULTS: Erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and monthly migraine attacks compared with placebo in a similar way. Erenumab had only a minor impact on shortening the duration of migraine attacks. CONCLUSION: These post-hoc analyses demonstrate that the decrease in monthly migraine days by erenumab is mainly driven by a reduction in the frequency of monthly migraine attacks and to a much lesser extent by shortening the duration of migraine attacks.Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02456740).

Pain freedom after 2 hours should be the primary outcome in controlled trials treating migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND: Pain freedom after 2 hours is the recommended primary endpoint by the International Headache Society in randomized trials investigating drug treatment of acute migraine attacks. In order to demonstrate an early effect of a drug, some drug companies, however, have promoted headache relief (improvement from severe or moderate pain to mild or no pain) at earlier time points than 2 hours as outcome parameter. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the relationship between pain freedom and headache relief in acute migraine trials and observed that persistent mild headache constituted 90% of headache relief after 0.5 hour and 40% of headache relief after 2 hours. CONCLUSION: Headache relief at 2 hours should in our view only be used as an outcome measure for comparison with historic data. Prior to 2 hours, headache relief varies with time from intake and the therapeutic gain is very small. Therefore, pain freedom should be used at these early time points.

Problematic presentation and use of efficacy measures in current trials of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for episodic migraine prevention: A mini-review.

BACKGROUND: In trials of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor for prevention of episodic migraine, we observed two problematic aspects: a) The graphic presentations; b) the methods of calculating "response rates" (≥50% decrease of monthly migraine days from baseline). OBSERVATIONS: Decrease in monthly migraine days is presented, over time, in figures on a downward (negative) scale from zero at baseline, with the ordinate stopped just beyond the maximum effect of the active drugs. In one trial, decreases in monthly migraine days were -1.8 after placebo, -3.2 after erenumab 70 mg and -3.7 after erenumab 140 mg, with the ordinate stopped at -4.5. The reader can perceive only a relative 2-fold benefit of erenumab versus placebo. If, however, treatment periods are compared with baseline in bar charts, MMDs persisting after treatment in the same trial can be illustrated as follows, creating a different perception: 78% for placebo, 61% for erenumab 70 mg, and 55% for erenumab 140 mg. In the nine trials, "response rates" defined as above were calculated in five different ways, taking different numbers of treatment months into account in comparisons with the one-month baseline. This makes comparisons impossible. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS: Mean monthly migraine days before and after treatment should be presented in a bar chart. Such figures, presenting persisting MMDs, are more clinically relevant and less misleading than decreases from baseline. The definition and methods of calculating and presenting "50% response rates" should be standardized by the Drug Trial Committee of the International Headache Society.

Why is the therapeutic effect of acute antimigraine drugs delayed? A review of controlled trials and hypotheses about the delay of effect.

In randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of oral drug treatment of migraine attacks, efficacy is evaluated after 2 hours. The effect of oral naratriptan 2.5 mg with a maximum blood concentration (Tmax ) at 2 hours increases from 2 to 4 hours in RCTs. To check whether such a delayed effect is also present for other oral antimigraine drugs, we hand-searched the literature for publications on RCTs reporting efficacy. Two triptans, 3 nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), a triptan combined with an NSAID and a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist were evaluated for their therapeutic gain with determination of time to maximum effect (Emax ). Emax was compared with known Tmax from pharmacokinetic studies to estimate the delay to pain-free. The delay in therapeutic gain varied from 1-2 hours for zolmitriptan 5 mg to 7 hours for naproxen 500 mg. An increase in effect from 2 to 4 hours was observed after eletriptan 40 mg, frovatriptan 2.5 mg and lasmiditan 200 mg, and after rizatriptan 10 mg (Tmax  = 1 h) from 1 to 2 hours. This strongly indicates a general delay of effect in oral antimigraine drugs. A review of 5 possible effects of triptans on the trigemino-vascular system did not yield a simple explanation for the delay. In addition, Emax for triptans probably depends partly on the rise in plasma levels and not only on its maximum. The most likely explanation for the delay in effect is that a complex antimigraine system with more than 1 site of action is involved.

Evaluating the reporting of adverse events in controlled clinical trials conducted in 2010-2015 on migraine drug treatments.

Background In 2008, the International Headache Society published guidelines on the "evaluation and registration of adverse events in clinical drug trials on migraine". They listed seven recommendations for reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials on migraine. The present study aimed to evaluate adherence to these recommendations, and based on the results, to recommend improvements. Methods We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE database to identify controlled trials on migraine drugs published from 2010 to 2015. For each trial, we noted whether five of the recommended parameters were presented. In addition, we noted whether adverse events were reported in abstracts. Results We identified 73 trials; 51 studied acutely administered drugs and 22 studied prophylactic drugs for migraine. The number of patients with any adverse events were reported in 74% of acute-administration and 86% of prophylactic drug trials. Only 30 (41%) of the 73 studies reported adverse events with data in the abstracts, and 27 (37%) abstracts did not mention adverse events. Conclusion Adverse events, both frequency and symptoms, should be reported to allow a fair judgement of benefit/tolerability ratio when randomized controlled trials in migraine treatment are published. Clinically significant adverse events should be included in the abstract of every randomized controlled trial in migraine treatment.

Delayed absorption of many (paracetamol, aspirin, other NSAIDs and zolmitriptan) but not all (sumatriptan, rizatriptan) drugs during migraine attacks and most likely normal gastric emptying outside attacks. A review.

Background In most pharmacokinetic studies, the oral absorption of drugs is impaired during migraine attacks but exceptions occur. A study on gastric emptying using gastric scintigraphy indicated that gastric stasis also occurs interictally in migraine. These studies were reviewed critically. Results In seven studies, mainly investigating NSAIDs and analgesics, the early absorption of the drugs during 112 migraine attacks was delayed. The absorption of sumatriptan is usual in therapeutic doses, and rizatriptan was normal during 131 migraine attacks. The interictal gastric stasis observed using gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES) with solids ( n = 13) could not be confirmed in a larger study ( n = 27) using the same method. Also gastric emptying measured with GES with liquids ( n = 7) and epigastric impedance ( n = 64) was normal outside migraine attacks. Conclusions and possible clinical implications Drug absorption is not generally impaired during migraine attacks. Gastric emptying is most likely normal in the majority of migraine patients outside attacks. Prokinetic and antiemetic drugs such as metoclopramide and domperidone should not be routinely combined with oral analgesics or oral triptans. If, however, nausea is severe or vomiting occurs, treatment with an antiemetic with proven efficacy on the nausea of migraine can be indicated.

General lack of use of placebo in prophylactic, randomised, controlled trials in adult migraine. A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Trials Subcommittee of the International Headache Society (IHS) recommends that a placebo arm is included in comparative randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of multiple prophylactic drugs due to the highly variable placebo response in migraine prophylaxis studies. The use of placebo control in such trials has not been systematically assessed. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of all comparative RCTs of prophylactic drug treatment of migraine published in English from 2002 to 2014. PubMed was searched using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying reports of RCTs. RESULTS: A placebo arm was used in <10% (three of 31) of prophylactic RCTs in migraine. In only 7.1% (two of 28) of the comparative RCTs without placebo was one drug superior to another drug. Thus in 26 RCTs, including one study requiring more than 75,000 patient days, no difference was identified across treatment arms and conclusions regarding drug superiority could not be drawn. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of comparative, prophylactic migraine RCTs do not include a placebo arm. Failure to include a placebo arm may result in failure to demonstrate efficacy of potentially effective migraine-prophylactic agents. In order to benefit current and future patients, the current strong tendency to omit placebo-controls in these RCTs should be replaced by adherence to the guidelines of the IHS.

The Evidence for Prescription Information for Possible Use of a Repeated Dose of Oral Triptans: A Comment.

A repeated dose of an oral triptan has been shown in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be ineffective as a treatment for no or partial response 2 hours after initial dosing but effective as treatment for headache recurrence. In the official prescription information in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Denmark repeated dosing of all seven oral triptans are recommended for headache recurrence but some triptans are also recommended for no or partial response, a use of a triptan deemed to be not beneficial in European and Canadian migraine guidelines. In summary, not all recommendations are based on evidence from RCTs. In addition, some recommendations are ambiguous and patients need clearer instructions. An example of such a clear British instruction in a patient leaflet instruction is presented at the end of the paper.

Is the Generally Held View That Intravenous Dihydroergotamine Is Effective in Migraine Based on Wrong "General Consensus" of One Trial? A Critical Review of the Trial and Subsequent Quotations.

BACKGROUND: The claim that parenteral dihydroergotamine (DHE) is effective in migraine is based on one randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial from 1986. The aim of this review was to critically evaluate the original article. It was also found to be of interest to review quotes concerning the results in the more than 100 articles subsequently referring to the article. METHODS: The correctness of the stated effect of intravenous DHE in the randomized clinical trial (RCT) was first critically evaluated. Then, Google Scholar was searched for references to the article and these references were classified as to whether they judged the reported RCT as positive or negative. RESULTS: The design of the RCT, with a crossover within one migraine attack, only allows evaluation of the results for the first period and the effect of DHE and placebo were quite comparable. About 151 references were found for the article in Google scholar. Among the 95 articles with a judgment on the efficacy of intravenous DHE in the RCT, 90 stated that DHE was effective or likely effective whereas only 5 articles stated that DHE was ineffective. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a "negative" RCT, authors of subsequent articles on the efficacy of parenteral DHE overwhelmingly reported this RCT as "positive." This is probably due to the fact that the authors concluded in the abstract that DHE is effective, and to a kind of "wrong general consensus."

What efficacy measures are clinically relevant and should be used in Cochrane Reviews of acute migraine trials? A viewpoint.

BACKGROUND: Cochrane Reviews are methodologically of high quality but the clinical relevance of analysed efficacy measures (EMs) should also be assessed. METHODS: The clinical relevance of EMs used in one systematic Cochrane review of oral zolmitriptan for migraine headache was evaluated. RESULTS: The following EMs were used: pain free at two hours (30%), headache relief at two hours (60%), sustained pain free for 24 hours (19%) and sustained headache relief for 24 hours (39%). These EMs were also used in four other Cochrane reviews of acute migraine treatment. Of these EMs sustained headache relief for 24 h is not judged clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: Pain free and sustained pain free are clinically relevant, but the responses are rather low, demonstrating that there is a need for improvement of acute drug treatment in migraine.

The qualitative problem of major quotation errors, as illustrated by 10 different examples in the headache literature.

There are two types of errors when references are used in the scientific literature: citation errors and quotation errors, and these errors have in reviews mainly been evaluated quantitatively. Quotation errors are the major problem, and 1 review reported 6% major quotation errors. The objective of this listing of quotation errors is to illustrate by qualitative analysis of different types of 10 major quotation errors how and possibly why authors misquote references. The author selected for review the first 10 different consecutive major quotation errors encountered from his reading of the headache literature. The characteristics of the 10 quotation errors ranged considerably. Thus, in a review of migraine therapy in a very prestigious medical journal, the superiority of a new treatment (sumatriptan) vs an old treatment (aspirin plus metoclopramide) was claimed despite no significant difference for the primary efficacy measure in the trial. One author, in a scientific debate, referred to the lack of dilation of the middle meningeal artery in spontaneous migraine despite the fact that only 1 migraine attack was studied. The possibility for creative major quotation errors in the medical literature is most likely infinite. Qualitative evaluations, as the present, of major quotation errors will hopefully result in more general awareness of quotation problems in the medical literature. Even if the final responsibility for correct use of quotations is with the authors, the referees, the experts with the knowledge needed to spot quotation errors, should be more involved in ensuring correct and fair use of references. Finally, this paper suggests that major misleading quotations, if pointed out by readers of the journal, should, as a rule, be corrected by way of an erratum statement.

The putative proton-coupled organic cation antiporter is involved in uptake of triptans into human brain capillary endothelial cells.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are anti-migraine drugs with a potential central site of action. However, it is not known to what extent triptans cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The aim of this study was therefore to determine if triptans pass the brain capillary endothelium and investigate the possible underlying mechanisms with focus on the involvement of the putative proton-coupled organic cation (H+/OC) antiporter. Additionally, we evaluated whether triptans interacted with the efflux transporter, P-glycoprotein (P-gp). METHODS: We investigated the cellular uptake characteristics of the prototypical H+/OC antiporter substrates, pyrilamine and oxycodone, and seven different triptans in the human brain microvascular endothelial cell line, hCMEC/D3. Triptan interactions with P-gp were studied using the IPEC-J2 MDR1 cell line. Lastly, in vivo neuropharmacokinetic assessment of the unbound brain-to-plasma disposition of eletriptan was conducted in wild type and mdr1a/1b knockout mice. RESULTS: We demonstrated that most triptans were able to inhibit uptake of the H+/OC antiporter substrate, pyrilamine, with eletriptan emerging as the strongest inhibitor. Eletriptan, almotriptan, and sumatriptan exhibited a pH-dependent uptake into hCMEC/D3 cells. Eletriptan demonstrated saturable uptake kinetics with an apparent Km of 89 ± 38 µM and a Jmax of 2.2 ± 0.7 nmol·min-1·mg protein-1 (n = 3). Bidirectional transport experiments across IPEC-J2 MDR1 monolayers showed that eletriptan is transported by P-gp, thus indicating that eletriptan is both a substrate of the H+/OC antiporter and P-gp. This was further confirmed in vivo, where the unbound brain-to-unbound plasma concentration ratio (Kp,uu) was 0.04 in wild type mice while the ratio rose to 1.32 in mdr1a/1b knockout mice. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated that the triptan family of compounds possesses affinity for the H+/OC antiporter proposing that the putative H+/OC antiporter plays a role in the BBB transport of triptans, particularly eletriptan. Our in vivo studies indicate that eletriptan is subjected to simultaneous brain uptake and efflux, possibly facilitated by the putative H+/OC antiporter and P-gp, respectively. Our findings offer novel insights into the potential central site of action involved in migraine treatment with triptans and highlight the significance of potential transporter related drug-drug interactions.

Relatively slow and long-lasting antimigraine effect of dihydroergotamine is most likely due to basic pharmacological attributes of the drug: a review.

INTRODUCTION: If a drug has a slow dissociation from the receptor this can result in a long duration of effect and a slow effect. The long duration of the antimigraine effect of dihydroergotamine (DHE) has been reported previously whereas a possible slow onset of DHE's antimigraine effect, which is the subject of this review, has only rarely been mentioned. METHODS: Eight randomised, controlled trials (RCT) with DHE for acute treatment with migraine were selected from the literature. The speed of the effect of DHE in migraine was evaluated by plotting the effect up to four hours against time. FINDINGS: Subcutaneous DHE 1 mg was inferior to subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg for headache relief for the first two hours but equally effective after three hours. After intranasal DHE 2 mg the mean therapeutic gain increased slowly up to four hours. For orally inhaled DHE 0.5 mg there was a considerable time lag between therapeutic gain (maximum after two hours) and plasma concentrations of DHE (Tmax = 12 min). CONCLUSION: DHE has a slow dissociation from the receptor; and this basic attribute of the drug is the most likely cause of the general relatively slow anti-migraine effect of DHE.