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

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

Early-Life Social Determinants of SCA6 Age at Onset, Severity, and Progression.

SCA6 patients with the same size CAG repeat allele can vary significantly in age at onset (AAO) and clinical progression. The specific external factors affecting SCA6 have yet to be investigated. We assessed the effect of early life events on AAO, severity, and progression in SCA6 patients using a social determinant of health approach. We performed a survey of biological and social factors in SCA6 patients enrolled in the SCA6 Network at the University of Chicago. AAO of ataxia symptoms and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of ataxia were used as primary outcome measures. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operation (LASSO) regressions were used to identify which early life factors are predictive of SCA6 AAO, severity, and progression. Multiple linear regression models were then used to assess the degree to which these determinants influence SCA6 health outcomes. A total of 105 participants with genetically confirmed SCA6 completed the assessments. SCA6 participants with maternal difficulty during pregnancy, active participation in school sports, and/or longer CAG repeats were determined to have earlier AAO. We found a 13.44-year earlier AAO for those with maternal difficulty in pregnancy than those without (p = 0.008) and a 12.31-year earlier AAO for those active in school sports than those who were not (p < 0.001). Higher education attainment was associated with decreased SCA6 severity and slower progression. Early life biological and social factors can have a strong influence on the SCA6 disease course, indicating that non-genetic factors can contribute significantly to SCA6 health outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The burden of medication overuse headache and patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: A synthesis of real-world discontinuation and switching patterns among triptan users and rates of acute medication use among patients with medication overuse headache (MOH) is needed to better understand the burden among patients with migraine. The study objectives were to: (1) synthesize rates of switching and discontinuation from triptans; (2) characterize acute medication use among patients with MOH; and (3) describe the associated burden. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review guidelines, using MEDLINE/EMBASE from database inception to July 2019. The search strategy targeted studies of adults with migraine, and included terms related to migraine and its treatment. Continuous variables were summarized using means, standard deviations, and ranges. Dichotomous and categorical variables were summarized using the number and proportion of individuals. RESULTS: Twenty studies were included; seven describing patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users, and 13 characterizing triptan overuse among patients with MOH. High rates of switching to non-specific acute medications and low two-year retention rates were reported; among US samples switching to opioids at the first refill (18.2%) or after 1-year (15.5%) was frequent. Compared to persistent use of triptans, switchers experienced greater headache related impact and either no improvement or increased headache-related disability. Rates of medication overuse by agent among patients with MOH varied greatly across the included studies, and only one study described factors associated with the risk of MOH (e.g. duration of medication overuse). Medication agent, increased headache frequency (p = .008), and increased disability (p = .045) were associated with unsuccessful withdrawal; patients overusing triptans were more successful at withdrawal than those overusing opioids or combination analgesics (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence summarized here highlights that rates of WCS are low and many patients turn to other acute medication at their first refill. Patients may experience no improvement in disability when switching from one triptan agent to another, or experience increasing disability and/or increasing migraine frequency when turning to traditional acute treatment for migraine. Variability in health care settings, patient severity, and study design contributed to heterogeneity across the synthesis.

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.

Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of cerebellar ataxia has been confined to rating scales, gait laboratories, and wearable sensors agnostic to patient input. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia. METHODS: (1) The conceptual framework, item pool development, and domain selection were developed using online surveys completed by 147 ataxia patients. Responses generated the 70-item Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia, scored on a 0-4 Likert scale. (2) Cognitive debrief in 17 patients grouped by ataxia severity assessed content validity, readability, and comprehension. (3) Psychometric validation by 78 anonymized ataxia patients included test-retest reliability, responsiveness to ataxia severity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and item-total score correlations. (4) Validation was tested against measures of ataxia and quality of life in 20 patients. (5) Items were rank-ordered to develop the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia Short Form. RESULTS: Three thousand eight hundred fifty-five symptoms were grouped into 3 domains (physical, activities of daily living, mental health) and 14 subdomains. The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia was comprehensible, important, and relevant. Internal consistency, reliability, and test-retest reliability were high. Scores were responsive to ataxia severity stages 1, 2, and 3: mean ± standard deviation 81.0 ± 37.0, 129.6 ± 32.0, and 151.1 ± 41.3, respectively (r = 0.58, P < 0.0001). The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia was validated against measures of motor ataxia, quality of life, and mental health. It had an R2 of 0.82 (P < 0.0001) with the preliminary Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia Short Form. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Ataxia is valid and reliable in cerebellar ataxia patients. It has the potential to improve patient care and natural history studies and quantify the efficacy of novel therapeutics in clinical trials. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

A Framework for Estimating the Eligible Patient Population for New Migraine Acute Therapies in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is associated with considerable disability for patients not adequately managed with current standards of care. New acute therapies may offer relief for this population of patients; however, population size and associated potential costs of new therapies are unclear. In this study, a conceptual framework was developed to estimate anticipated use of new acute therapies. METHODS: Targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies, and characteristics of individuals who would be eligible for new acute therapies. Findings from the TLR were combined to create a framework for estimating the size of the eligible patient population. This framework was used to calculate two estimates of the eligible patient population by applying parameters (i) identified in the TLR and (ii) from a recent budget-impact analysis (BIA). RESULTS: The primary factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies identified in the TLR were consulting a healthcare professional for headache, receiving a migraine diagnosis, and receiving a prescription for migraine-specific treatment. Characteristics of individuals likely to use new acute therapies reflected in the TLR were contraindication to triptans, or failure to respond to/tolerate at least two oral triptans. Application of the framework suggested that 15-25% of individuals with migraine would be eligible for new acute therapies. CONCLUSION: A limited number of patients currently use migraine-specific acute therapies. Among such patients, a significant proportion do not have adequate symptom control. Accordingly, a minority of individuals with migraine may be expected to use new acute therapies. The framework developed in this study is intended to facilitate estimating the eligible patient population in assessments of costs of new acute therapies. Such assessments should also consider recommendations that patients have access to multiple types of acute therapies, which may yield savings from reduced medication-overuse headache (MOH), progression to chronic migraine, and urgent-care costs.

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.