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.

Invention of novel 3-aminopiperidin-2-ones as calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists.

A novel series of 3-amino-piperidin-2-one-based calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists was invented based upon the discovery of unexpected structure-activity observations. Initial exploration of the structure-activity relationships enabled the generation of a moderately potent lead structure (4). A series of modifications, including ring contraction and inversion of stereocenters, led to surprising improvements in CGRP receptor affinity. These studies identified compound 23, a structurally novel potent, orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonist.

Substance P/calcitonin gene-related peptide and their receptors expression in human periodontal ligament after root canal preparation with five different systems.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of five different root canal preparation instruments on Substance P (SP), Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and their receptors expression in healthy human periodontal ligament. METHODOLOGY: STROBE guidelines were used to design a study using 60 periodontal ligament samples obtained from healthy lower premolars where extraction was indicated for orthodontic reasons. Prior to extraction 40 of these premolars were equally divided into four groups and root canals were prepared using different systems: Mtwo, Reciproc Blue, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V. Ten premolars were prepared with hand files and served as a positive control group. The remaining 10 premolars where extracted without treatment and served as a negative control group. All periodontal ligament samples were processed to measure the expression of SP, CGRP and their receptors by radioimmunoassay. Kruskal-Wallis and Duncan tests were performed to determine statistically significant differences between the groups for each variable. RESULTS: Greater expression of all the peptides measured were found in the hand-file preparation group, followed by the Reciproc Blue, Mtwo, HyFlex EDM and Plex-V groups. The lower SP, CGRP and their receptors values were for the intact teeth control group. Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences amongst groups (p < .001). Dunn post-hoc tests showed statistically significant differences in SP, CGRP and their receptors expression between the intact teeth and the hand-file and Reciproc Blue groups. Hand-file group showed significant differences with the other groups, except with Reciproc Blue, where no differences were observed in any of the peptides measured. Finally, no differences were observed between Plex-V and HyFlex in any of the peptides measured. CONCLUSIONS: Root canal preparation with hand files and Reciproc Blue generates the highest expression of SP, CGRP, NK1 and CGRP1R in human periodontal ligament, whilst Plex-V and HyFlex maintain the basal expression of neuropeptides and their receptors. Mtwo showed intermediate results between Reciproc Blue and HyFlex.

Efficacy and safety of atogepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, for the preventive treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the most common diseases worldwide while current treatment options are not ideal. New therapeutic classes of migraine, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists, have been developed and shown considerable effectiveness and safety. The present study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of atogepant, a CGRP antagonist, for migraine prophylaxis from the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed and https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ were searched for RCTs that compared atogepant with placebo for migraine prophylaxis from inception of the databases to Feb 1, 2024. Outcome data involving efficacy and safety were combined and analyzed using Review Manager Software version 5.3 (RevMan 5.3). For each outcome, risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. RESULTS: 4 RCTs with a total of 2813 subjects met our inclusion criteria. The overall effect estimate showed that atogepant was significantly superior to placebo in terms of the reduction of monthly migraine (SMD - 0.40, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.34) or headache (SMD - 0.39, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.33) days, the reduction of acute medication use days (SMD - 0.45, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.39) and 50% responder rate (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.46 to 1.89), while no dose-related improvements were found between different dosage groups. For the safety, significant number of patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with atogepant than with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.21) while there was no obvious difference between the five dosage groups. Most TEAEs involved constipation (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.91-3.41), nausea (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.67-2.87) and urinary tract infection (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05-2.11). In addition, a high dosage of atogepant may also increase the risk of treatment-related TEAEs (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.02-2.63) and fatigue (RR 3.07, 95% CI 1.13-8.35). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that atogepant is effective and tolerable for migraine prophylaxis including episodic or chronic migraine compared with placebo. It is critical to weigh the benefits of different doses against the risk of adverse events in clinical application of atogepant. Longer and multi-dose trials with larger sample sizes are required to verify the current findings.

Phase Ib, open-label, fixed-sequence, drug-drug interaction, safety, and tolerability study between atogepant and ubrogepant in participants with a history of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate potential drug-drug interactions of ubrogepant and atogepant. BACKGROUND: Ubrogepant and atogepant, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, are recently approved drugs for acute and preventive treatment of migraine, respectively. For patients with migraine who are prescribed atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine, health care providers could prescribe ubrogepant for the acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks. METHODS: A phase Ib, multi-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study was conducted in participants diagnosed with migraine for at least 1 year. To assess the primary objective of pharmacokinetic interactions in this phase I trial, the highest United States Food and Drug Administration-approved individual dose strengths of atogepant (60 mg once daily) and ubrogepant (100 mg) were utilized, with ubrogepant being administered on a fixed-dose schedule every 3 days, regardless of whether a participant was experiencing a migraine attack. Secondary endpoints included safety and tolerability. Clinical safety measurements were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Of the 31 participants enrolled, 26 completed the study. A single dose of ubrogepant had no statistically significant effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of ubrogepant with atogepant resulted in a 19% increase (geometric mean ratio 118.80, 90% confidence interval [CI] 108.69-129.84) in the ubrogepant area under the plasma concentration-time curve and a 26% increase (geometric mean ratio 125.63, 90% CI 105.58-149.48) in the ubrogepant maximum plasma concentration. These statistically significant changes in ubrogepant exposure were not clinically meaningful, and no new safety concerns were identified for the combination. CONCLUSION: The combination use of atogepant and ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in adult participants with a history of migraine enrolled in the study. Pharmacokinetic changes during co-administration were not clinically meaningful.

Zavegepant Intranasal Spray for Migraines.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to review the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of intranasal zavegepant in the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. DATA SOURCE: PubMed, Embase database, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched using the following terms: Zavzpret, Zavegepant, BHV-3500, and migraine. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles published in English from January 2013 to September 2023 related to pharmacology, safety, efficacy, and clinical trials were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: In a phase 2/3 trial, zavegepant 10 and 20 mg were more effective than placebo on primary endpoints of freedom of pain (22.5%, 23.1%, and 15.5%, respectively), and freedom from most bothersome symptoms (MBSs) (41.9%, 47.9%, and 33.7%, respectively) 2 hours after treatment. The incidence of adverse effects for both doses was similar to placebo. In a phase 3 trial, zavegepant 10 mg was compared with placebo. Two hours after treatment, more patients in the zavegepant group achieved pain freedom (24% vs 15%) and relief from MBSs (40% vs 31%) compared with placebo. Common adverse events included dysgeusia (21% zavegepant vs 5% placebo) and nasal discomfort (5% zavegepant vs 1% placebo). RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE IN COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DRUGS: Zavegepant is indicated for acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. Zavegepant method of administration and prompt relief of migraine symptoms may be an attractive alternative to triptans for those in need of relief. CONCLUSION: Zavegepant may be a convenient and useful acute treatment option for migraines with and without aura.

Update of Gepants in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite the unmet therapeutic needs of patients with chronic migraine (CM) and/or medication overuse, available treatment options are limited. Recently, four calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have been approved for the treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the preventive treatment of CM with gepants and highlights recent findings. RECENT FINDINGS: Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown promising results for rimegepant and atogepant as preventive treatments for CM. In an RCT targeting patients with CM, atogepant demonstrated a significant reduction in the mean monthly migraine days, irrespective of acute medication overuse. Moreover, the patients reported no significant safety concerns and exhibited good tolerance to treatment. These findings highlight the potential of gepants as a new and effective therapeutic option for patients with CM and/or medication overuse. Gepant use will help improve the management and quality of life of individuals with this debilitating condition.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks-Successful translation of basic science to clinical practice.

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurovascular disorder afflicting more than 15% of the global population. Nearly three times more females are afflicted by migraine in the 18-50 years age group, compared to males. Migraine attacks are most often sporadic, but a subgroup of individuals experience a gradual increase in frequency over time; among these, up to 1%-2% of the global population develop chronic migraine. Although migraine symptoms have been known for centuries, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Two theories have dominated the current thinking-a neurovascular theory and a central neuronal theory with the origin of the attacks in the hypothalamus. During the last decades, the understanding of migraine has markedly advanced. This is supported by the early seminal demonstration of the trigeminovascular reflex 35 years ago and the insight that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks. The more recent findings that gepants, small molecule CGRP receptor blockers, and monoclonal antibodies generated against CGRP, or its canonical receptor are useful for the treatment of migraine, are other important issues. CGRP has been established as a key molecule in the neurobiology of migraine. Moreover, monoclonal antibodies to CGRP or the CGRP receptor represent a breakthrough in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology and have emerged as an efficacious prophylactic treatment for patients with severe migraine with excellent tolerability. This review describes the progression of research to reach the clinical usefulness of a large group of molecules that have in common the interaction with CGRP mechanisms in the trigeminal system to alleviate the burden for individuals afflicted by migraine.

Immunogenicity of erenumab: A pooled analysis of six placebo-controlled trials with long-term extensions.

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity of erenumab, a human anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody developed for migraine prevention, has been evaluated throughout clinical development. METHODS: Integrated post hoc analysis assessing immunogenicity of erenumab across six clinical trials in patients with episodic and chronic migraine (N = 2985). Anti-erenumab antibody incidence and potential impact on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety were evaluated in short-term (double-blind treatment phase 12-24 weeks) and long-term (double-blind treatment phase plus extensions of up to 5 years) analyses. RESULTS: Anti-erenumab binding antibody incidence was low with few patients developing neutralizing antibodies. Antibody responses were mostly transient with low magnitude. Binding antibodies developed as early as 2-4 weeks after the first dose; the majority developed within the first 6 months and very few after the first year. Serum concentrations of erenumab in antibody-positive patients were generally lower than, but within the range of, antibody-negative patients. There was no impact of anti-erenumab antibodies on erenumab efficacy or safety with no differences between antibody-positive and antibody-negative patients in change in monthly migraine days or adverse event rates. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis showed that immunogenicity had no meaningful clinical impact on efficacy or safety of erenumab in patients with migraine.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01952574; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02483585; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02174861; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02630459; Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03812224.

Systemic calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonism decreases survival in a porcine model of polymicrobial sepsis: blinded randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and procalcitonin, which are overexpressed in sepsis, exert distinct immunomodulatory effects mediated through the CGRP receptor. The CGRP receptor antagonist olcegepant improves survival in murine sepsis. This study evaluated whether CGRP receptor antagonism is similarly beneficial in a porcine model of polymicrobial sepsis. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomised, controlled, investigator-blinded trial in adult pigs of either sex, that were anaesthetised and ventilated before sepsis was induced by polymicrobial (autologous) faecal peritonitis. After the onset of early septic shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or >10% decline from baseline MAP), pigs were resuscitated (i.v. fluid/antibiotics/vasopressors) and randomised to receive either i.v. olcegepant (n=8) or vehicle control (n=8). The primary outcome was time to death, euthanasia required up to 72 h after surgery (according to predefined severe cardiorespiratory failure), or both. Secondary outcomes included haemodynamic changes, and systemic as well as organ inflammation (mRNA expression). RESULTS: Septic shock developed 8.7 h (inter-quartile range, 5.8-11.1 h) after the onset of faecal peritonitis. Olcegepant worsened survival, with 6/8 pigs randomised to the control group surviving 72.0 h (50.9-72.0 h), compared with 3/8 pigs receiving olcegepant surviving 51.3 h (12.5-72.0 h; P=0.01). At 48 h, lower MAP and higher cardiac output occurred in pigs receiving olcegepant. Cardiac, hepatic, and renal injury was not different between pigs randomised to receive olcegepant or vehicle. Olcegepant reduced mRNA expression of several inflammation-related cytokines and CD68+ macrophages in liver but not in lung tissue. CONCLUSIONS: CGRP receptor antagonism with olcegepant was not beneficial in this porcine model of polymicrobial sepsis, which closely mimics human sepsis.

Real-World Patient Experience of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine: a Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize available calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting therapies for migraine and discuss their use in real-world populations. BACKGROUND: CGRP has long been a topic of interest in migraine pathophysiology, with new therapies targeting CGRP since 2018 for both the preventive and acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: We searched PubMed using keywords including "migraine," "CGRP," "real-world," "erenumab," "galcanezumab," "fremanezumab," "eptinezumab," "ubrogepant," "rimegepant," and "atogepant." We reviewed all pertinent studies and summarized main findings. We also compiled detailed patient characteristics (e.g., migraine diagnoses, medication overuse, prior treatment failures) and treatment outcome measures, such as 50% responder rates, reduction in migraine days, and adverse event rates in several tables. Overall, studies reporting real-world patient experiences of CGRP-targeting therapies suggested meaningful effectiveness for migraine treatment with response rates comparable to the numbers reported in clinical trials. Furthermore, studies suggested benefit in patients with multiple prior unsuccessful treatment trials, medication overuse, and complex medical comorbidities. In some studies, adverse event rates have been notably higher than reported in clinical trials. Additional long-term data is needed to further evaluate sustained efficacy, predictors of treatment response, and adverse events.

Synthesis of a dual carbon-14-labeled calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for use in a human absorption-distribution-metabolism-elimination study.

Oral calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists have been shown to be effective in the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. CGRP receptor antagonists offer safety advantages over triptans because they are not active vasoconstrictors, which reduces cardiovascular risks. Bristol Myers Squibb discovered a high affinity CGRP receptor antagonist BMS-927711 for the treatment of migraine now FDA approved as Nurtec® ODT (rimegepant). Dual-labeled [14 C]-BMS-927711 was prepared and used in a human absorption-distribution-metabolism-elimination (ADME) study. A dual-labeled analog of BMS-927711 was required to fully track the compound's metabolic transformation. The carbon-14-labeled synthesis of both right side and left side portions of [14 C]-BMS-927711 is described.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting drugs and Raynaud's phenomenon: a real-world potential safety signal from the WHO pharmacovigilance database.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is responsible for significant disability and societal burden. Recently, drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway raised new hopes. CGRP, a potent vasodilator, plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine attacks. The deficiency of CGRP is involved in Raynaud's phenomenon, which consists of abnormal vasoconstriction of the digits. We aimed to assess the potential association of Raynaud's phenomenon with CGRP-targeting drugs, analyzing real-world data from the World Health Organization (VigiBase®). METHODS: We queried all reports of Raynaud's phenomenon involving a CGRP-targeting drug. We sought disproportionate reporting of Raynaud's phenomenon with these drugs. For this purpose, we relied on the calculation of the Information Component (IC). A positive lower end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the IC defines a statistically significant association. As migraine patients are prone to Raynaud's phenomenon, we also calculated the IC of Raynaud's phenomenon with CGRP-targeting drugs compared to 5HT1B/D agonists (triptans), and beta-blockers used in the treatment of migraine. RESULTS: Overall, 99 reports of Raynaud's phenomenon involving CGRP-targeting drugs have been yielded in VigiBase®. The most reported CGRP-targeting drug was erenumab, with 56 reports (56.6%). The median time to onset was 84 days. No fatality was notified, but one patient suffered from gangrene and extremity necrosis. As a whole, CGRP-targeting drugs were significantly associated with Raynaud's phenomenon, with an IC of 3.3 (95%CI: 3.0-3.5). There was a disproportionate reporting of Raynaud's phenomenon with CGRP-targeting drugs compared to triptans (IC 0.4; 95%CI: 0.1-0.6) and to beta-blockers (IC 0.5; 95%CI: 0.2-0.7) as well. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant disproportionality signal of Raynaud's phenomenon with CGRP-targeting. This signal stands out when CGRP-targeting drugs are compared to other drugs used in patients with migraine. This study is limited by missing data in pharmacovigilance reports. CGRP-targeting drugs may be subject to Weber effect and reporting bias. Nonetheless, CGRP blockade might be the last straw that disrupts the physiological balance of vascular response in patients at-risk of Raynaud's phenomenon. Pending further data regarding vascular safety of CGRP-targeting drugs, caution is warranted in these patients.

No additive effect of combining sumatriptan and olcegepant in the GTN mouse model of migraine.

INTRODUCTION: Despite recent advances in migraine treatment there is a need for therapies with higher clinical efficacy and/or fewer side effects. Triptans (5-HT1B/1D/1F agonists) are essential in the present treatment regime and gepants (CGRP-receptor antagonists) are recognized as effective in acute migraine treatment. Triptans and gepants have different mechanisms of action and here we tested the hypothesis that a combination of these drugs (sumatriptan and olcegepant) would result in an additive effect. METHODS: Using the validated glyceryl trinitrate mouse model of migraine, we initially tested dose-response relationships of sumatriptan (0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 mg/kg IP) and olcegepant (0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 mg/kg IP) to find suitable high and low doses. Subsequently, we performed a combination study of the two drugs with a low and a high dose. All experiments were vehicle (placebo) controlled and blinded. RESULTS: Sumatriptan significantly reduced glyceryl trinitrate-induced allodynia (F(4,54) = 13.51, p < 0.0001) at all doses. Olcegepant also reduced glyceryl trinitrate-induced allodynia (F(4,53) = 16.11, p < 0.0001) with the two higher doses being significantly effective. Combining 0.50 mg/kg olcegepant with 0.1 or 0.6 mg/kg sumatriptan did not have any improved effect compared to either drug alone (p > 0.50 on all days) in our mouse model. CONCLUSION: Combining olcegepant and sumatriptan did not have an additive effect compared to single-drug treatment in this study. Triptan-gepant combinations will therefore most likely not improve migraine treatment. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary, and combinations should also be examined in patients with migraine.

Adverse effects of erenumab on cerebral proliferative angiopathy: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral proliferative angiopathy is a vascular malformation associated with compromised blood-brain barrier and with migraine-like headache. Treating blood-brain barrier-compromised patients with erenumab, an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody, may be risky. CASE: We describe a case of a 22-year-old chronic migraine patient with cerebral proliferative angiopathy who presented to our hospital in status epilepticus 2 d after his first dose of erenumab. Serial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies demonstrated progressive areas of diffusion restriction including the brain tissue adjacent to the cerebral proliferative angiopathy, bilateral white matter and hippocampi. His 6-month post-presentation magnetic resonance imaging was notable for white matter injury, encephalomalacia surrounding cerebral proliferative angiopathy and bilateral hippocampal sclerosis. He remains clinically affected with residual symptoms, including refractory epilepsy and cognitive deficits. CONCLUSION: The evidence presented in this case supports further investigation into potential deleterious side effects of erenumab in patients with compromised blood-brain barrier, such as individuals with intracranial vascular malformations.

Reduction in migraine pain intensity in patients treated with erenumab: A post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized studies.

BACKGROUND: Erenumab (erenumab-aooe in the US) effectively reduces monthly migraine days in episodic and chronic migraine. This traditional outcome does not capture the intensity of headache pain on days with migraine. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine examined the effect of erenumab 70 and 140 mg on migraine pain. Cumulative monthly migraine pain intensity is the sum of the peak pain intensity scores (0 = no migraine to 3 = migraine day with severe pain) on migraine days. Change from baseline in cumulative monthly migraine pain and average monthly pain intensity was assessed over months 4 to 6 for episodic migraine and month 3 for chronic migraine; change in average monthly pain intensity was assessed among monthly migraine days responders/non-responders. RESULTS: Efficacy analysis included 946 patients for the episodic migraine study and 656 patients for the chronic migraine study. Cumulative monthly migraine pain decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo (p < 0.001, for episodic migraine and chronic migraine). In addition, monthly average migraine pain intensity decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo for episodic migraine (p < 0.01); decreases were non-significant for chronic migraine. In comparison with placebo-treated patients, a greater proportion of erenumab-treated patients were pain intensity responders regardless of threshold used. Episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (responders) had a greater reduction in monthly average pain intensity than non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Erenumab reduced cumulative monthly migraine pain in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients and significantly reduced monthly average migraine pain in episodic migraine, demonstrating treatment benefit beyond reduction in migraine frequency.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02066415.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: Results from a 5-year, open-label treatment phase of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Although erenumab has demonstrated significant reduction in migraine frequency and improved quality of life in studies lasting 3 to 12 months, little is known about long-term therapy. METHODS: This study was an open-label, 5-year treatment phase following a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults with episodic migraine. Patients initially received open-label erenumab 70 mg, which increased to 140 mg following a protocol amendment. Efficacy analyses included change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly acute migraine-specific medication (AMSM) days, and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: Of 383 patients enrolled, 250 switched to 140 mg; 215 (56.1%) completed open-label treatment. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs from baseline of 8.7 (0.2) days was -5.3 (0.3) days; an average reduction of 62.3% at year 5. Among patients using AMSM at baseline (6.3 [2.8] treatment days), mean change in monthly AMSM days was -4.4 (0.3) days at the end of 5 years. Patient-reported outcomes indicated stable improvements in disability, headache impact, and migraine-specific quality of life. Exposure-adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) were 123.0/100 patient-years; AEs were most frequently nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, and influenza. Serious AEs (SAEs) reported by 49 patients (3.8/100 patient-years) were mostly single occurrence. Two fatal adverse events were reported. There were no increases in incidence of AEs, SAEs, or AEs leading to treatment discontinuation over 5 years of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with erenumab was associated with reductions in migraine frequency and improvements in health-related quality of life that were maintained for at least 5 years. No new safety signals were observed.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists: Heterocyclic modification of a novel azepinone lead.

In our efforts to identify orally bioavailable CGRP receptor antagonists, we previously discovered a novel series of orally available azepinone derivatives that unfortunately also exhibited the unwanted property of potent time-dependent human CYP3A4 inhibition. Through heterocyclic replacement of the indazole ring, we discovered a series of heterocycle derivatives as high-affinity CGRP receptor antagonists. Some of them showed reasonable oral exposures, and the imidazolone derivatives that showed good oral exposure also exhibited substantially reduced time-dependent CYP3A4 inhibition. Several compounds showed strong in vivo efficacy in our marmoset facial blood flow assay with up to 87% inhibition of CGRP-induced activity. However, oral bioavailability generally remained low, emphasizing the challenges we and others encountered in discovering clinical development candidates for this difficult Class B GPCR target.

Novel Therapies in Acute Migraine Management: Small-Molecule Calcitonin Gene-Receptor Antagonists and Serotonin 1F Receptor Agonist.

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents-ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant-representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. DATA SOURCES: The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative. DATA SYNTHESIS: CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan's adverse effect profile may limit its use.

Reduction in acute migraine-specific and non-specific medication use in patients treated with erenumab: post-hoc analyses of episodic and chronic migraine clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). METHODS: The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM. CONCLUSIONS: In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.