Triptan non-response in a London tertiary headache centre: What can we learn? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Triptans revolutionized the acute treatment of migraine; however, varied responses to triptans, as a result of poor efficacy and tolerability, are reported. A standardized definition of triptan non-response was recently proposed by the European Headache Federation (EHF). There is currently limited data available on the prevalence of triptan non-response. METHODS: We used clinic letters over a two-year duration to evaluate the triptan response and triptan efficacy or tolerability failure, or both, in a London-based tertiary headache service. RESULTS: In total, 419 adult migraine patients (females: 83.8%, age: 46 ± 18 years, chronic migraine: 88.5%) were included in a service evaluation. In line with the EHF definitions, "triptan non-response" was seen in 63.8% of patients (264/414), whereas 37.7% of patients (156/414) had failed at least two triptans (EHF "triptan resistant") and 4.6% of patients (19/414) had failed at least three triptans, including a subcutaneous formulation (EHF "triptan refractory"). Notably, 21.3% of patients (88/414) had failed at least three triptans inclusive and exclusive of subcutaneous triptan use. Advancing age (p < 0.001) and the presence of medication overuse (p = 0.006) increased the probability of triptan response, whereas an increased number of failed preventives (p < 0.001) and the use of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (p = 0.022) increased the probability of triptan non-response. The largest proportion of patients responded to eletriptan (49.5%), followed by nasal zolmitriptan (44.4%) and rizatriptan (35.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight an alarming prevalence of triptan non-response among adult migraineurs receiving treatment in a London-based tertiary headache service. It is imperative for clinicians to explore methods to optimize acute medication efficacy, whether this comprises changing to a triptan with a superior response rate, advocating for early intervention or considering alternative acute medication classes, such as gepants or ditans.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication.

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Situational prevention: Pharmacotherapy during periods of increased risk for migraine attacks.

The small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) are the only drug class with medicines indicated for both the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Given this dual capacity to both treat and prevent, along with their favorable tolerability profiles and lack of an association with medication-overuse headache, headache specialists have begun to use gepants in ways that transcend the traditional categories of acute and preventive treatment. One approach, called situational prevention, directs patients to treat during the interictal phase, before symptoms develop, in situations of increased risk for migraine attacks. Herein, we present three patients to illustrate scenarios of gepant use for situational prevention. In each case, a gepant was started in anticipation of a period of increased headache probability (vulnerability) and continued for a duration of 1 day to 5 consecutive days. Although this approach may expose patients to medication when headache may not have developed, the tolerability and safety profile and preventive effect of gepants may represent a feasible approach for some patients. Situational prevention is an emerging strategy for managing migraine before symptoms develop in individuals who can identify periods when the probability of headache is high. This paper is intended to increase awareness of this strategy and stimulate future randomized, placebo-controlled trials to rigorously assess this strategy.

Comparison of gepant effects at therapeutic plasma concentrations: connecting pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

BACKGROUND: Orally administered second-generation gepants are effective for the treatment of migraine. The intranasal administration of the third-generation gepant zavegepant might have additional benefits including a rapid onset of action, but it is not clear yet to which extent this has clinical relevance. METHODS: We examined the effect of zavegepant on the relaxations induced by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in human isolated middle meningeal arteries. Furthermore, we connected the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of gepants by combining data from clinical and basic research. RESULTS: We showed that 10 nM zavegepant potently antagonized the functional response to CGRP. We also showed that all gepants are effective at inhibiting functional responses to CGRP at their therapeutic plasma concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively low predicted potency of zavegepant to inhibit CGRP-induced relaxation at therapeutic systemic plasma concentrations may point to the relevance of local delivery to the trigeminovascular system through intranasal administration. This approach may have additional benefits for various groups of patients, including overweight patients.

Long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine attacks.

BACKGROUND: Long-term data helps assess the consistency of efficacy, tolerability, and safety of acute treatment over repeated use for different attacks. Real-world studies help assess tolerability, safety, and efficacy in patients with possibly refractory chronic migraine, more comorbidities, other diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, and polypharmacy. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the long-term open-label and real-world studies of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine. Both manuscripts and abstracts were reviewed. RESULTS: The efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant are maintained over time. No significant cardiovascular adverse events were thought to be related to any of these medications. The rare instances of palpitations and/or tachycardia occurred within 48 hours of lasmiditan. One participant with a history of supraventricular tachycardia had sinus tachycardia thought to be related to ubrogepant which did not recur despite continued use. One case of thrombocytopenia and two cases of increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine transaminase were thought to be possibly related, but the alanine transaminase and aspartate aminotransferase levels normalized despite continued use of ubrogepant. A case of first-degree atrioventricular block was considered possibly related to rimegepant. Acute use of rimegepant was associated with a decrease in monthly migraine days over time. The three medications were associated with improvement in function and/or productivity. CONCLUSION: Long-term and real-world data of tolerability, safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant is thus far consistent with prior studies, but more longitudinal data that clarifies long-term safety as well as consistency and predictors of response is needed.

New migraine prophylactic drugs: Current evidence and practical suggestions for non-responders to prior therapy.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs) and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are new mechanism-based prophylactic drugs developed to address the unmet needs of pre-existing migraine prophylactic medications. However, several uncertainties remain in their real-world applications. METHODS: This is a narrative review of the literature on the use of CGRP-targeting novel therapeutics in specific situations, including non-responders to prior therapy, combination therapy, switching, and treatment termination. In the case of lack of available literature, we made suggestions based on clinical reasoning. RESULTS: High-quality evidence supports the use of all available anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) in non-responders to prior therapy. There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the efficacy of combining CGRP(-R) mAbs or gepants with oral migraine prophylactic agents or botulinum toxin A. Switching from one CGRP(-R) mAb to another might benefit a fraction of patients. Currently, treatment termination depends on reimbursement policies, and the optimal mode of termination is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: New prophylactic drugs that target the CGRP pathway are promising treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. Individualized approaches using a combination of new substances with oral prophylactic drugs or botulinum toxin A, switching between new drugs, and adjusting treatment duration could enhance excellence in practice.

Emerging drugs for the preventive treatment of migraine: a review of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants trials.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is a leading cause of years lived with disability and preventive strategies represent a mainstay to reduce health-related disability and improve quality of life of migraine patients. Until a few years ago, migraine prevention was based on drugs developed for other clinical indications and relocated in the migraine therapeutic armamentarium, characterized by unfavorable tolerability profiles. The advent of monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists, has been a turning point in migraine prevention owing to advantageous efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles.Nevertheless, while in an ideal scenario a drug characterized by significant greater efficacy and tolerability compared to existing therapeutic strategies should be adopted as a first-line treatment, cost-effectiveness analyses available for monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway tend to limit their administration to more severe migraine phenotypes. AREAS COVERED: The present narrative review aims to provide a critical appraisal of phase II and III CGRP-mAbs and gepants trials to analyze their use in clinical practice. EXPERT OPINION: Despite monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway and gepants can be undoubtedly considered top-of-the-range treatments, there are still issues deserving to be addressed in the coming years as the risk of off-target effects as well as their economic sustainability based on the considerable migraine burden.

Once-daily oral atogepant for the long-term preventive treatment of migraine: Findings from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of once-daily oral atogepant 60 mg in adults with migraine. BACKGROUND: Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine. METHODS: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of adults (18-80 years) with migraine. Lead-in trial completers or newly enrolled participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were enrolled and randomized (5:2) to atogepant 60 mg once daily or oral standard care (SC) migraine preventive medication. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atogepant; safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory evaluations, vital signs, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores. Efficacy assessments (atogepant only) included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) and the proportion of participants with reductions from baseline of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% in MMDs. RESULTS: The trial included 744 participants randomized to atogepant 60 mg (n = 546) or SC (n = 198). The atogepant safety population was 88.2% female (n = 479/543) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 42.5 (12.0) years. TEAEs occurred in 67.0% (n = 364/543) of participants treated with atogepant 60 mg. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥5%) were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%; 56/543), constipation (7.2%; 39/543), nausea (6.3%; 34/543), and urinary tract infection (5.2%; 28/543). Serious TEAEs were reported in 4.4% (24/543) for atogepant. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs for atogepant was -3.8 (0.1) for weeks 1-4 and -5.2 (0.2) at weeks 49-52. Similarly, the proportion of participants with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions in MMDs increased from 60.4% (310/513), 37.2% (191/513), and 20.7% (106/513) at weeks 1-4 to 84.2% (282/335), 69.9% (234/335), and 48.4% (162/335), at weeks 49-52. CONCLUSION: Daily use of oral atogepant 60 mg for preventive treatment of migraine during this 1-year, open-label trial was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious.

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.

[Integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Part 2 : preventive treatment]. / Intégration des nouveaux anti-migraineux dans notre pratique clinique . Partie 2 : traitement préventif.

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be very debilitating. While traditional (and older) oral preventive treatments have helped numerous patients to date, their therapeutic efficacy is often low, and adverse event profiles are troublesome. However, the coupled progress of biochemistry and molecular biology as well as the application of advanced drug design methods have led to a therapeutic renewal with, in particular, the advent of monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP («Calcitonin Gene- Related-Peptide¼) transmission. We provide an overview of the preventive pharmacologic options with both older oral treatments and new ones such as botulinum toxin and the newly marketed CGRP monoclonal antibodies. The latter seem particularly interesting because they have an effectiveness at least equivalent to most oral treatments with much better tolerance and compliance. Unfortunately, their very high cost confines them to a fourth line of therapy in Belgium, a disappointment for both specialists in migraine therapy and patients who suffer from frequent migraine crisis. We finally propose a rational (and Belgian) pharmacological approach of migraine preventive treatment.

La migraine est la maladie neurologique la plus fréquemment rencontrée et elle peut être très handicapante. Si les traitements préventifs oraux traditionnels (et anciens) ont déjà aidé de nombreux patients à ce jour, il faut bien reconnaître que leur efficacité s'est souvent avérée faible et avec un profil d'effets indésirables peu favorable. Heureusement, les progrès couplés de la biochimie et de la biologie moléculaire de même que l'application de méthodes avancées de conception de médicaments ont entraîné un renouveau thérapeutique avec, notamment, l'avènement des anticorps monoclonaux anti-CGRP («Calcitonin Gene-Related-Peptide¼). Nous présentons les différentes options pharmacologiques de traitement préventif, que ce soient les traitements oraux anciens, mais aussi les nouveaux traitements récemment remboursés en Belgique que sont la toxine botulinique et surtout les anticorps monoclonaux anti-CGRP. Ces derniers semblent particulièrement intéressants car ils ont une efficacité au minimum équivalente à la plupart des traitements oraux, avec une bien meilleure tolérance et observance thérapeutique. Malheureusement, leur prix très élevé les cantonne actuellement à une quatrième ligne thérapeutique en Belgique, une déception pour les médecins spécialistes de la migraine et les patients invalidés par de fréquentes crises de migraine. Nous clôturons par une proposition d'algorithme thérapeutique adapté à la Belgique (et à ses critères de remboursement).

[Integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice (part 1) : management of acute migraine attack]. / Intégration des nouveaux anti-migraineux dans notre pratique clinique . Partie 1 : traitement de la crise de migraine.

Although migraine is one of the most common chronic diseases and is the subject of numerous studies, there is still a considerable proportion of patients who are not satisfied with their acute treatment. Left without any real new therapeutic option to offer patients since sumatriptan was introduced on the Belgian market 30 years ago, neurologists have recently seen a change in the therapeutic landscape with the advent of new specific acute treatments for migraine: gepants and ditans. Being the only ones currently available in Belgium, gepants (including the newly marketed rimegepant) bring added value to traditional treatments such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and triptans. This is why it seemed useful to review the different therapeutic options available in Belgium today by including these new treatments and to propose a rational pharmacological approach to relieve acute migraine attack.

Bien que la migraine soit une des maladies chroniques les plus fréquentes et fasse l'objet de nombreuses recherches, il existe malheureusement encore une proportion importante de patients insatisfaits de leur traitement anti-douleur. Sans nouvelle vraie option thérapeutique à proposer aux patients depuis la mise sur le marché belge du sumatriptan voici 30 ans, le neurologue a vu récemment le paysage thérapeutique se modifier avec l'arrivée de nouveaux traitements spécifiques de la crise de migraine : les gépants et les ditans. Seuls disponibles pour le moment en Belgique, les gépants (avec notamment le rimégépant nouvellement commercialisé) apportent une plus-value aux traitements traditionnels que sont les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens et les triptans. C'est la raison pour laquelle il nous a semblé utile de refaire le point sur les différentes options thérapeutiques disponibles aujourd'hui en Belgique en intégrant ces nouveaux traitements et de proposer une approche pharmacologique rationnelle pour soulager la douleur de la crise de migraine.

Cardiovascular Disease and Migraine: Are the New Treatments Safe?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The authors present data on cardiovascular safety for the new acute and preventive migraine treatments including ditans, gepants, and calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) alongside older medications like triptans and ergotamines. RECENT FINDINGS: The authors conclude that there are no cardiovascular safety concerns for lasmiditan, and that it could be used in those with cardiovascular disease. In fact, the literature even suggests that triptans are safer in cardiovascular disease than their contraindications may suggest. At this time, there is insufficient evidence that gepants and CGRP mAbs should be contraindicated in those with cardiovascular disease including stroke or myocardial infarction, though erenumab has now been associated with hypertension. Vasodilation may be an important CGRP-mediated mechanism mid-ischemia especially in patients with small vessel disease; hence, CGRP antagonists should be use with caution in this context. Long-term data is still needed, and prescribers should ensure patients are aware of the limitations of our knowledge at this time, while still offering these effective and well-tolerated treatment options.

CGRP-Targeted Therapy for Episodic and Chronic Cluster Headache.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic cluster headache (CH) substantially affects patients' quality of life, and treatment remains challenging. The current article reviewed controlled studies for new treatment options targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptors in CH and discussed the current gaps and future directions for the treatment of chronic CH. RECENT FINDINGS: Two anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (i.e., galcanezumab and fremanezumab) completed randomized-control trials for efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic CH. Galcanezumab was effective for preventing episodic CH but not chronic CH. Fremanezumab was ineffective in preventing episodic and chronic CH. Studies for other anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and CGRP antagonists are still pending for results. There are no randomized controlled trials for CGRP-targeted therapies that showed efficacy for chronic CH prevention. The different responses to galcanezumab between episodic and chronic CH may be due to the study design, i.e., the allowance of concomitant preventive therapies in the chronic CH study but not in the episodic CH study. Another reason for the discrepancies is the different roles and sensitivity of CGRP in chronic CH.

European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure.

BACKGROUND: Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder. MAIN BODY: The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient's well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Migraine therapeutics differentially modulate the CGRP pathway.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of migraine therapeutic agents directed towards the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway has confirmed the key role of this axis in migraine pathogenesis. Three antibodies against CGRP - fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab - and one antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab, are clinically approved therapeutics for the prevention of migraine. In addition, two small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, are approved for acute migraine treatment. Targeting either the CGRP ligand or receptor is efficacious for migraine treatment; however, a comparison of the mechanism of action of these therapeutic agents is lacking in the literature. METHODS: To gain insights into the potential differences between these CGRP pathway therapeutics, we compared the effect of a CGRP ligand antibody (fremanezumab), a CGRP receptor antibody (erenumab) and a CGRP receptor small molecule antagonist (telcagepant) using a combination of binding, functional and imaging assays. RESULTS: Erenumab and telcagepant antagonized CGRP, adrenomedullin and intermedin cAMP signaling at the canonical human CGRP receptor. In contrast, fremanezumab only antagonized CGRP-induced cAMP signaling at the human CGRP receptor. In addition, erenumab, but not fremanezumab, bound and internalized at the canonical human CGRP receptor. Interestingly, erenumab also bound and internalized at the human AMY1 receptor, a CGRP receptor family member. Both erenumab and telcagepant antagonized amylin-induced cAMP signaling at the AMY1 receptor while fremanezumab did not affect amylin responses. CONCLUSION: The therapeutic effect of agents targeting the CGRP ligand versus receptor for migraine prevention (antibodies) or acute treatment (gepants) may involve distinct mechanisms of action. These findings suggest that differing mechanisms could affect efficacy, safety, and/or tolerability in migraine patients.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories. METHODS: ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom. RESULTS: Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Future prophylactic treatments in migraine: Beyond anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants.

Migraine is ranked as a leading cause of years lived with disability among all neurological disorders. Therapies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling pathway, including monoclonal antibodies against the receptor or ligand and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), are today approved for migraine prophylaxis with additional compounds expected to be introduced to the market soon. In this review, we consider other putative prophylactic migraine drugs in development, including compounds targeting G-protein coupled receptors, glutamate, ion channels, and neuromodulatory devices. Emergence of these new interventions could complement our current treatment armamentarium for migraine management.

Safety and tolerability of ubrogepant following intermittent, high-frequency dosing: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant is a novel, oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist in development for the acute treatment of migraine. This trial evaluated the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant, focusing on hepatic safety, when administered intermittently with high-frequency dosing to healthy participants. METHODS: In this phase 1, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, healthy adults (age 18-50 years) were randomized 1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant. Ubrogepant was dosed at 100 mg (2 × 50 mg tablets) on 2 consecutive days followed by 2 consecutive days of placebo, alternating for 8 weeks. Primary outcome measures were safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Of participants randomized (n = 518), 516 were included in the safety population (n = 260 placebo; n = 256 ubrogepant). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 45% of placebo and 44% of ubrogepant participants. The most common was headache (10% placebo; 11% ubrogepant). Overall, seven cases of alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase levels ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal (five placebo, two ubrogepant) were reported and adjudicated by a panel of independent liver experts blinded to treatment. Four cases were judged unlikely related to treatment. Two cases (one placebo, one ubrogepant) were judged possibly related, and one (ubrogepant) probably related. Alanine aminotransferase increases to ≥ 3 × the upper limit of normal in the two ubrogepant cases (possibly or probably related) were transient and resolved with continued dosing; both cases were asymptomatic, with no concurrent bilirubin elevation. CONCLUSION: Ubrogepant was well tolerated following intermittent, high-frequency dosing in healthy participants, with no clinically relevant signal of hepatotoxicity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NA.

Targeting CGRP for the Prevention of Migraine and Cluster Headache: A Narrative Review.

Calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP), a neuropeptide broadly distributed in neuronal and non-neuronal regions throughout the body, plays a fundamental role in migraine and cluster headache (CH) pathophysiology. CGRP functional blockade alleviates neurogenic inflammation and reduces pain pathway sensitization. Two types of CGRP function-blocking modalities, monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), and small molecules (gepants), have been designed to target the CGRP ligands and CGRP receptors. In this narrative review, we summarized the latest clinical trials on gepants and CGRP function-blocking MAbs for migraine and CH prevention. At the time of writing, newer gepants are currently under Federal Drug Administration (FDA) review for migraine management, but there is no study yet on the usage of gepants for CH. Erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab have been approved by the FDA for migraine prevention while eptinezumab is under FDA review. CGRP MAbs are as effective as and more tolerable than conventional migraine preventives. For CH prevention, galcanezumab has shown some promising findings and was recently approved for use in episodic cluster prevention. CGRP function-blocking therapy not only demonstrates high efficacy and superior safety profile, but also improves headache frequency and quality of life. Convenient monthly dosing for the MAbs can further improve medication adherence, hence better headache control. With CGRP function-blocking therapy showing efficacy even in individuals who failed other preventives, it has become an exciting new therapeutic option in the field of migraine and CH.

Novel Medications for the Treatment of Migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the new classes of medication for headache management and their roles in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key component in the underlying pathophysiology of migraine. Research focused on targeting CGRP for headache treatment has led to the development of entirely new classes of medications - the gepants and the CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) - for both acute and preventive treatment. A third class, the ditans, is being developed to target the 5-HT1F receptor to provide acute treatment without vasoconstrictive effects. METHODS: This article reviews the pathophysiology of migraine that has led to these new pharmacologic developments. Available information from randomized controlled trials, abstracts, press releases, and relevant preclinical studies is summarized for each class of medications. RESULTS: At the time of this writing, one ditan has been submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval. One gepant is anticipated to be submitted within the first quarter of 2019, and others are in clinical trials. Three CGRP mAbs have been FDA approved and are now available in clinical practice, and a fourth was submitted in the first quarter of 2019. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new migraine-specific classes of medications provides more treatment options for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.