A placebo-controlled, randomized, single and multiple dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of rimegepant in healthy participants.

BACKGROUND: Rimegepant is an oral, small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute treatment of migraine and migraine prevention. METHODS: This was a single-site, placebo-controlled, sequential, single and multiple ascending dose study in healthy males and females, aged 18-55 years, with no clinically significant medical history. The objectives were to assess the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of the oral capsule free-base formulation. Single oral doses of rimegepant from 25-1500 mg were evaluated in the single ascending dose phase, and 75-600 mg/day doses administered for 14 days were evaluated in the multiple ascending dose phase. RESULTS: No dose-related trends were observed in orthostatic systolic and diastolic blood pressure or heart rate after rimegepant administration. Rimegepant was rapidly absorbed with the median time of maximum observed plasma concentration from 1-3.5 hours. Rimegepant showed a more than dose-proportional increase in exposure from 25-1500 mg following a single dose and from 75-600 mg/day following multiple doses. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was safe and generally well tolerated at single oral doses up to 1500 mg and multiple doses up to 600 mg/day for 14 days in healthy participants in this study. Median terminal half-life ranged from 8-12 hours across the wide range of single doses studied.

Rimegepant 75 mg in Subjects With Hepatic Impairment: Results of a Phase 1, Open-Label, Single-Dose, Parallel-Group Study.

Rimegepant is a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist (gepant) with demonstrated efficacy and safety in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Here, we report the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single 75-mg oral dose of rimegepant in subjects with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and matched healthy subjects from an open-label, single-dose, 4-group phase 1 study. Thirty-six subjects aged 41-71 years were enrolled, including 6 each with severe, moderate, or mild hepatic impairment and 18 healthy subjects. All subjects completed the study. A <20% increase in total and unbound pharmacokinetics was observed in subjects with mild hepatic impairment and ≤65% increase with moderate hepatic impairment versus matched healthy controls. Total and unbound systemic exposure increased 2.0- and 3.9-fold in the severe hepatic impairment group. In subjects with severe hepatic impairment, geometric mean ratios (severe impairment/controls) for total concentrations were 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable concentration, 202.2% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity, and 189.1% for maximum observed plasma concentration. Corresponding geometric mean ratios using unbound concentrations were 388.8% and 388.7%, respectively. Three (8.3%) subjects reported 4 treatment-emergent adverse events. Rimegepant is not recommended for use in adults with severe hepatic impairment.

Prophylactic Efficacy of Riluzole against Anxiety- and Depressive-Like Behaviors in Two Rodent Stress Models.

Introduction: Chronic stress-related illnesses such as major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder share symptomatology, including anxiety, anhedonia, and helplessness. Across disorders, neurotoxic dysregulated glutamate (Glu) signaling may underlie symptom emergence. Current first-line antidepressant drugs, which do not directly target Glu signaling, fail to provide adequate benefit for many patients and are associated with high relapse rates. Riluzole modulates glutamatergic neurotransmission by increasing metabolic cycling and modulating signal transduction. Clinical studies exploring riluzole's efficacy in stress-related disorders have provided varied results. However, the utility of riluzole for treating specific symptom dimensions or as a prophylactic treatment has not been comprehensively assessed. Methods: We investigated whether chronic prophylactic riluzole (∼12-15 mg/kg/day p.o.) could prevent the emergence of behavioral deficits induced by unpredictable chronic mild stress (UCMS) in mice. We assessed (i) anxiety-like behavior using the elevated-plus maze, open-field test, and novelty-suppressed feeding, (ii) mixed anxiety/anhedonia-like behavior in the novelty-induced hypophagia test, and (iii) anhedonia-like behavior using the sucrose consumption test. Z-scoring summarized changes across tests measuring similar dimensions. In a separate learned helplessness (LH) cohort, we investigated whether chronic prophylactic riluzole treatment could block the development of helplessness-like behavior. Results: UCMS induced an elevation in anhedonia-like behavior and overall behavioral emotionality that was blocked by prophylactic riluzole. In the LH cohort, prophylactic riluzole blocked the development of helplessness-like behavior. Discussion/Conclusion: This study supports the utility of riluzole as a prophylactic medication for preventing anhedonia and helplessness symptoms associated with stress-related disorders.

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

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

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience. METHODS: Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose. RESULTS: In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Observational Analysis of the Costs Associated with Acute Treatment of Breakthrough Migraine Attacks in Medicaid Patients Using Preventive Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Medications for preventive treatment of migraine reduce migraine frequency, usually measured by a reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD), but generally do not eliminate the need for acute treatment. To assess the economic impact of treatment-related reductions in frequency, methodological guidance recommends capturing cost differences along the spectrum of MMD. OBJECTIVE: Characterize monthly migraine medication costs along the spectrum of MMD for patients using calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for prevention. METHODS: Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data (SDUD) were used to identify formulations and per-unit costs for oral, intranasal, and parenteral migraine-specific medications for acute and preventive treatment used by fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid enrollees in 2020. National drug codes of relevant therapies were used to match SDUD to formulation characteristics including substance, route of administration, and branded/generic marketing status. Mean per-unit cost and the formulation's share of total prescriptions were estimated. Monthly medication costs were modeled based on formulations' per-unit costs and frequency of acute medication use during clinical trials of CGRP mAbs. RESULTS: In the SDUD, there were 563,338 prescriptions for migraine-specific acute medications; triptans accounted for 97.37%. Triptan formulations prescribed were 83.78% oral tablet, 10.89% orally disintegrating tablet, 2.60% intranasal, and 2.73% parenteral. Dihydroergotamine accounted for < 1% of total prescriptions and had the highest per-unit cost ($443.50, branded intranasal). There were 97,119 prescriptions for CGRP mAbs, the majority for erenumab (45.73%) or galcanezumab (45.24%). Modeled monthly acute and preventive medication costs ranged from approximately $550 in patients with the fewest MMD treated with oral triptans to > $1500 in patients with the most MMD treated with dihydroergotamine. CONCLUSION: In consideration of the migraine-specific acute medications used in FFS Medicaid 2020, for patients using CGRP mAbs for prevention, medication costs may vary significantly with the number of breakthrough attacks treated per month and the type of migraine-specific acute therapy used.

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305).

INTRODUCTION: The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks. CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03732638.

Ataxia Rating Scales Reflect Patient Experience: an Examination of the Relationship Between Clinician Assessments of Cerebellar Ataxia and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Ataxia rating scales are observer administered clinical outcome assessments (COAs) of the cerebellar motor syndrome. It is not known whether these COAs mirror patient experience of their disease. Here we test the hypothesis that ataxia COAs are related to and reflect patient reported symptoms and impact of illness. A concept library of symptoms and activities impacted by ataxia was created by reviewing (a) concept elicitation data from surveys completed by 147 ataxia patients and 80 family members and (b) cognitive debrief data from focus groups of 17 ataxia patients used to develop the Patient Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia. These findings were mapped across the items on 4 clinical measures of ataxia (SARA, BARS, ICARS and FARS). Symptoms reported most commonly related to balance, gait or walking, speech, tremor and involuntary movements, and vision impairment. Symptoms reported less frequently related to hand coordination, loss of muscle control, dizziness and vertigo, muscle discomfort or pain, swallowing, and incontinence. There was a mosaic mapping of items in the observer-derived ataxia COAs with the subjective reports by ataxia patients/families of the relevance of these items to their daily lives. Most COA item mapped onto multiple real-life manifestations; and most of the real-life impact of disease mapped onto multiple COA items. The 4 common ataxia COAs reflect patient reported symptoms and impact of illness. These results validate the relevance of the COAs to patients' lives and underscore the inadvisability of singling out any one COA item to represent the totality of the patient experience.

Zavegepant nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine: A Phase 2/3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of zavegepant nasal spray in the acute treatment of migraine. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting agents are a novel class of therapeutics for migraine, but none are currently available as a nonoral option for acute treatment. Zavegepant, a high-affinity, selective, and structurally unique calcitonin gene-related peptide-receptor antagonist in late-stage development, is formulated as a nasal spray for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: This randomized, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled, Phase 2/3 trial in adults aged ≥18 years with migraine (NCT03872453) was conducted at US study sites. Participants were randomized by an interactive web response system and treated a single attack of moderate to severe pain intensity with zavegepant nasal spray 5, 10, 20 mg, or placebo. Coprimary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose. RESULTS: Of the 1673 participants aged 18 to 79 years who were randomized, 1588 were treated with study medication, and 1581 (mean age 40.8 years, 85.5% female) were analyzed for efficacy: zavegepant 5 mg (n = 387), 10 mg (n = 391), 20 mg (n = 402), and placebo (n = 401). Zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on the coprimary endpoints of pain freedom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 15.5% [98.3% confidence interval (CI), 11.1, 19.8]; 10 mg: 22.5% [98.3% CI, 17.5, 27.6; p = 0.0113]; 20 mg: 23.1% [98.3% CI, 18.1, 28.2; p = 0.0055]) and freedom from the most bothersome symptom at 2 h postdose (placebo: 33.7% [98.3% CI, 28.0, 39.3]; 10 mg: 41.9% [98.3% CI, 36.0, 47.9; p = 0.0155]; 20 mg: 42.5% [98.3% CI, 36.6, 48.4; p = 0.0094]). Findings for the 5 mg dose were not significant. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with zavegepant 10 and 20 mg and placebo were dysgeusia (13.5% to 16.1% vs. 3.5%), nausea (2.7% to 4.1% vs. 0.5%), and nasal discomfort (1.3% to 5.2% vs. 0.2%). Most adverse events were mild or moderate and resolved without treatment. There was no signal of hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSION: Zavegepant nasal spray, in single doses of 10 or 20 mg, was effective for the acute treatment of migraine, with a favorable safety profile. Additional research is needed to confirm its potential as a nonoral medication for the acute treatment of migraine.

A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore patient preference for attributes of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors for the preventive treatment of migraine and to describe differences in treatment preferences between patients. BACKGROUND: CGRP inhibitors are a novel class of migraine drugs specifically developed for the preventive treatment of migraine. Clinicians should understand patient preferences for CGRP inhibitors to inform and support prescribing choices. METHODS: Patients with migraine in the US and Germany were recruited to participate in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, which presented hypothetical treatment choices using five attributes: mode of administration, side effects, migraine frequency, migraine severity, and consistency of treatment effectiveness. Attribute selection was informed by a literature review and semi-structured patient interviews (n = 35), and evaluated using patient cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 5). RESULTS: Of 680 who consented to participate, 506 participants completed the survey and were included in the study (US = 257; Germany = 249). Overall, participants placed highest importance (preference weight, beta = 1.65, p < 0.001) on the treatment's ability to reduce the severity of migraine (mild vs. unchanged severity), followed by consistent treatment effectiveness (beta = 1.13, p < 0.001), and higher chance of reduced migraine frequency (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001). Participants preferred an oral tablet every other day (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001) over quarterly infusion, quarterly injections (p = 0.019), or monthly injection (p < 0.001). Preference for all treatment attributes were heterogeneous, and the subgroup analyses found that participants naïve to CGRP monoclonal antibody treatments had a stronger preference for oral therapy compared to those with such experience (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: In this DCE assessing CGRP inhibitors attributes, the main driver of patient choice was treatment effectiveness, specifically reduced migraine severity, and consistent treatment effectiveness. Further, patients exhibited an overall preference for an oral tablet every other day over injectables. Patients' experience with previous treatments informs the value they place on treatment characteristics.

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

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

Measuring interictal burden among people affected by migraine: a descriptive survey study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has extensively documented the impact of migraine episodes ('ictal') on patients' health-related quality of life. Few studies have looked at the impact of migraine on migraine-free days ('interictal'). This study was designed to describe interictal burden of migraine in a mixed group of people affected by migraine and to explore patient characteristics associated with interictal burden. METHODS: People with migraine in the United States (US) and Germany were recruited for a cross-sectional online survey, including a subgroup treated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb). The survey included the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6), and items measuring patient demographics, clinical and treatment background. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and linear regression. RESULTS: Five hundred six people with migraine completed the survey (US: n = 257; Germany: n = 249), of whom 195 had taken a CGRP mAb for three or more months. Participants had a mean of 8.5 (SD = 6.4) Monthly Migraine Days (MMD) and 10.4 (SD = 7.1) Monthly Headache Days (MHD). The mean MIBS-4 score was 6.3 (SD = 3.4), with 67% reporting severe interictal burden (MIBS-4: ≥5). The mean HIT-6 score was 65.3 (SD = 6.0), with 86% reporting severe migraine impact (HIT-6: ≥60). MIBS-4 was correlated with the HIT-6 (r = 0.37), MMD and MHD (both r = 0.27). The HIT-6, MMD, MHD, CGRP mAb treatment, and depression all had an independent positive association with the MIBS-4. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of the study sample reported substantial interictal burden. Whilst interictal burden was associated with migraine frequency and impact of migraine attacks, study results also show it represented a distinct aspect of the overall disease burden. Study findings further indicate unique associations between interictal burden and depression. A unique positive association between interictal burden and CGRP mAb treatment suggests a remaining unmet need among people affected by migraine treated with CGRP mAb.

Real-World experience of interictal burden and treatment in migraine: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The debilitating nature of migraine attacks is widely established; however, less is known about how the interictal burden (i.e., how patients are affected in-between migraine episodes) of migraine impacts on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). Acute and preventive treatments may lift the burden of the disease, but they often have unwanted side effects and limited effectiveness. The objective of this study was to understand the interictal burden of migraines, from the patient perspective, and to explore patient experience with migraine treatments. METHODS: Participants (n=35) with a self-reported diagnosis of migraine were recruited in the US, UK and Canada, including a subgroup of patients who had taken calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody (CGRP mAb) treatment for at least three months. Participants completed a background questionnaire, followed by a semi-structured interview via telephone or video call. The interviews explored patients' migraine symptoms, perception of interictal burden and treatment experience. The interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The most reported migraine symptom was migraine pain, followed by aura, sensory sensitivity and nausea. Most participants reported interictal impact on HRQL, lifestyle changes they made to avoid triggers or in anticipation of an attack, impacts on work, career, daily activities and relationships. Emotional impacts were reported by all participants, including anger, depression, anxiety and hopelessness. Many participants who took preventive treatments reported improvements in HRQL and functioning but still experienced breakthrough attacks. Among patients who took CGRP mAbs, participants noted varying consistency of treatment effectiveness between treatment administrations. CONCLUSION: This study detailed the additional HRQL impact of migraine in-between migraine attacks and described the unmet need for effective treatment options to prevent and mitigate migraine attacks.

Real-world assessment of the relationship between migraine-related disability and healthcare costs in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the associations among migraine disability assessment scores, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; medical visits and pharmacy use) and direct medical costs among people with episodic migraine in a real-world setting. BACKGROUND: Migraine is a public health concern associated with a substantial economic burden in the United States. However, the association between migraine disability and direct medical costs among people with migraine is unknown. METHOD: This retrospective, cohort study used claims and electronic health record data from the Decision Resources Group database. Adults with migraine with or without aura, defined by International Classification of Disease Revision 9 (ICD-9) or ICD Revision 10 (ICD-10) codes, and a completed Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) questionnaire from January 2016 to December 2018 were included (chronic migraine codes not included). The associations of MIDAS score with the cost of HCRU for the 6 months after MIDAS assessment were explored. Results were stratified by treatment setting. RESULTS: Among 7662 included patients, MIDAS scores were distributed as: 3348 (43.7%; I, little/none), 1107 (14.4%; II, mild), 1225 (16.0%; III, moderate), 893 (11.7%; IVa, severe), and 1089 (14.2%; IVb, very severe). Worsening disability was associated with higher medical costs (adjusted from a multivariable model). In the primary care setting, healthcare visit costs were $206 (95% confidence interval: $144-294) for grade I and $631 ($384-1036) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $203 (grade I; $136-301) and $719 (grade IVb; $410-1259). For specialty care (e.g., neurologist), healthcare visits cost $509 ($411-629) for grade I and $885 ($634-1236) for grade IVb patients; corresponding pharmacy costs were $494 (grade I; $378-645) and $1020 (grade IVb; $643-1620). CONCLUSION: Higher levels of migraine-related disability (MIDAS assessed) are associated with increased HCRU costs among Americans with episodic migraine. Migraine disability assessment could be useful in the development, testing, and prescription of cost-effective treatments for people with high migraine-related disability.

P-Glycoprotein and Breast Cancer Resistance Protein Transporter Inhibition by Cyclosporine and Quinidine on the Pharmacokinetics of Oral Rimegepant in Healthy Subjects.

Rimegepant (Nurtec ODT)-an orally administered, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine-is a substrate for both the P-glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein transporters in vitro. We evaluated the effects of concomitant administration of strong inhibitors of these transporters on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant in healthy subjects. This single-center, open-label, randomized study was conducted in 2 parts, both of which were 2-period, 2-sequence, crossover studies. Part 1 (n = 15) evaluated the effect of a single oral dose of 200-mg cyclosporine, a strong inhibitor of the P-glycoprotein and breast cancer resistance protein transporters, on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant 75 mg. Part 2 (n = 12) evaluated the effect of a single oral dose of 600-mg quinidine, a strong selective P-glycoprotein transporter, on the pharmacokinetics of rimegepant 75 mg. Coadministration with cyclosporine showed an increase in rimegepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity and maximum observed concentration based on geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) of 1.6 (1.49-1.72) and 1.41 (1.27-1.57), respectively, versus rimegepant alone. Coadministration with quinidine showed an increase in rimegepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity and maximum observed concentration geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of 1.55 (1.40-1.72) and 1.67 (1.46-1.91), respectively, versus rimegepant alone. Strong P-glycoprotein inhibitors (cyclosporine, quinidine) increased rimegepant exposures (>50%, <2-fold). In parts 1 and 2, rimegepant coadministration was well tolerated and safe. The similar effect of cyclosporine and quinidine coadministration on rimegepant exposure suggests that inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein inhibition may have less influence on rimegepant exposure.

Human Milk and Plasma Pharmacokinetics of Single-Dose Rimegepant 75 mg in Healthy Lactating Women.

Objective: Investigate whether rimegepant-an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for the treatment of migraine-is excreted in human milk after a single 75 mg dose and characterize its concentration-time profile in the plasma and milk of healthy lactating women to determine the relative infant dose (RID). Methods: This open-label, single-center study enrolled healthy lactating women aged 18-40 years with a gestation of 37-42 weeks and uncomplicated delivery of a single healthy child ≥2 weeks (14 days) and ≤6 months before study drug administration. Plasma samples were collected 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours postdose; human milk samples were collected at 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, and 36 hours. The milk:plasma drug concentration ratio was estimated as the ratio of the human milk:plasma areas under the curve. The RID (%) was calculated as 100 times the quotient of the body weight-normalized infant and maternal doses. Results: Subjects (N = 12) were enrolled between 25 January and 15 September 2020. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 29.8 (3.6) years; mean (SD) body mass index was 26.8 (4.9) kg/m2. The mean (SD) RID of rimegepant was 0.51% (0.14). The mean (SD) body-weight normalized infant dose was 0.005 (0.001) mg/kg/day, the mean (SD) body-weight normalized maternal dose was 1.04 (0.18) mg/kg/day, and mean (SD) maternal body weight was 74.0 (13.3) kg. Conclusion: On a weight-adjusted basis, the mean RID of rimegepant was <1% of the maternal dose.

Monthly migraine days, tablet utilization, and quality of life associated with Rimegepant - post hoc results from an open label safety study (BHV3000-201).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe patterns in monthly migraine days (MMD) and tablet utilization, and to estimate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures in patients treated as needed (PRN) with rimegepant 75 mg over 52-weeks. METHODS: Eligible subjects were adults with ≥1 year history of migraine and ≥ 6 MMD at baseline, who used rimegepant 75 mg up to once daily PRN (at their discretion) for up to 52-weeks in an open-label safety study (BHV3000-201; NCT03266588). Mean MMD were calculated at each 4-week period, along with mean monthly tablets taken. Migraine-specific quality of life (MSQv2) data were mapped to EQ-5D utilities and used to characterize HRQoL over time. A published network meta-analysis was used to characterize pain hours as well as time periods spent migraine free. RESULTS: One thousand forty four subjects were included in this post-hoc analysis. Overall mean MMD were 10.9 at baseline and decreased to 8.9 by week 52. Tablet use remained stable over the follow-up period. A total of 0.08 incremental QALYs were associated with rimegepant use. CONCLUSION: For subjects with 6 or more MMD, acute treatment of migraine attacks with rimegepant 75 mg on a PRN basis over one-year of follow-up was found to be associated with reduced MMD frequency without an increase in monthly tablet utilization, and improved HRQoL. There was no evidence of medication-related increases in MMDs when rimegepant 75 mg was used as needed for the acute treatment of migraine over 52-weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03266588 .

Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48 hours post-dose, and adverse events. No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs. RESULTS: Five RCTs were identified as follows: rimegepant study 303 (n = 1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n = 1,672 and n = 1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n = 2,231 and n = 3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48 hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Mapping Migraine-Specific Quality of Life to Health State Utilities in Patients Receiving Rimegepant.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition, affecting up to 15% of Americans. Recent estimates from a long-term safety study of rimegepant showed evidence of decreased monthly migraine days (MMD) in people with episodic migraine treated with rimegepant 75 mg. The objective of this study was to characterize migraine-specific quality of life version 2.1 (MSQv2) scores and corresponding mapped EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) utility values. METHODS: Study participants were randomized into two treatment regimens: individuals with 2-14 MMD received rimegepant 75 mg as needed (PRN), and those with 4-14 MMD at baseline who received rimegepant on a fixed every-other-day schedule plus an as needed dose on days they did not treat (QOD + PRN). MSQv2 was mapped to EQ-5D-3L utilities using a validated algorithm. Outcomes were assessed for the PRN arm at baseline weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52 and for the QOD + PRN arm at baseline and week 12. RESULTS: At baseline, MSQv2 data were available for 1,800 patients: 1,033 with 2-8 MMD in the PRN group, 481 with 9-14 MMD in the PRN group, and 286 with 4-14 MMD in the QOD + PRN group. For all MSQv2 domains as well as mapped utility values, outcomes improved over each study visit. At baseline, EQ-5D-3L utilities were 0.66, 0.63, and 0.65 for the 2-8 MMD PRN, 9-14 MMD PRN, and 4-14 MMD QOD + PRN groups, respectively. At end-of-study, utilities had increased by + 0.09, + 0.10, and + 0.12 for the three groups, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline). Similar trends in improvement were observed across MSQv2 subdomains; all differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Rimegepant 75 mg, which has been shown to be associated with reduced MMD, is associated with improvement in MSQv2 domains over time, leading to estimated improvement in EQ-5D-3L utilities. While this improvement was observed in all patient-groups, it was most pronounced in those with higher MMD and those taking rimegepant QOD + PRN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT03266588.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health-related quality of life in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: Rimegepant is an orally administered small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, with demonstrated efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine. Recent estimates from a single-arm trial (BHV3000-201) have also shown evidence of long-term preventive effects in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to compare MMDs and HRQoL data for oral rimegepant to those obtained in placebo-controlled trials for injectable anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) galcanezumab and erenumab. METHODS: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted using rimegepant subject-level data and published aggregate-level results from mAb trials. Rimegepant baseline characteristics were matched to the pooled subject characteristics from EVOLVE-I/II (galcanezumab vs. placebo; n = 1773) and STRIVE (ereumab vs. placebo; n = 955) by reweighting the rimegepant subjects to more closely match the distributions observed in these trials. To align with inclusion criteria of the mAb trials, only the subset of rimegepant subjects with a history of 4-14 MMDs were included (n = 257). Weighted mean differences were used to calculate adjusted change in MMDs, Migraine Disability Assessment Test (MIDAS) score, and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2 (MSQv2) scores from baseline to week 12. RESULTS: When matched to the EVOLVE trials, rimegepant was superior to placebo with a mean difference in MMD change from baseline [95% confidence interval] of -1.16 [-1.80, -0.52] and was not statistically significantly different from galcanezumab 0.59 [-0.13, 1.32]. When matched to the STRIVE trial, rimegepant was superior to placebo -1.59 [-2.15, -1.03] and was not statistically significantly different from erenumab -0.06 [-0.61, 0.50]. Rimegepant showed superior MIDAS and MSQv2 results compared with placebo in both EVOLVE trials and in the STRIVE trial, no statistically significant differences from galcanezumab and erenumab regarding MIDAS, and favorable results compared with erenumab across all MSQv2 domains, while being generally similar to galcanezumab across all MSQv2 domains. CONCLUSIONS: When adjustments were made to reflect baseline characteristics in published literature, supporting data from BHV3000-201 suggest that rimegepant every other day is an effective therapy in reducing disability and MMDs and enhancing migraine-specific HRQoL. These data support the preventive benefit observed in randomized trials of rimegepant and further validate its efficacy for both acute and preventive treatment of migraine.