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.

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.

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.