Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications. BACKGROUND:While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives. METHODS:SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18?years or older with 3 to 8 migraine attacks per month. Patients were randomized to treat a migraine attack with oral lasmiditan 50?mg (SPARTAN only), 100?mg, 200?mg, or placebo. Migraine preventives were allowed as long as doses were stable for 3 months prior to screening and were unchanged during the study. Preventive medications with established or probable efficacy, as recommended by the American Academy of Neurology, the American Headache Society, and the European Headache Federation, plus botulinum toxin type A and candesartan, were included. Within the subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies, lasmiditan and placebo groups were analyzed for the outcome of pain-free at 2?h and other efficacy outcomes. The subgroups of patients using and not using preventive therapies were compared and interaction p-values were calculated for safety and efficacy outcomes. RESULTS:In these trials, 698 of 3981 patients (17.5%) used migraine preventive treatments. Among patients using preventives, all lasmiditan doses resulted in significantly more patients being pain-free at 2?h, compared to placebo (p?

SUBMITTER: Loo LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6734212 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

Loo Li Shen LS Ailani Jessica J Schim Jack J Baygani Simin S Hundemer Hans-Peter HP Port Martha M Krege John H JH

The journal of headache and pain 20190724 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To study the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine in patients using migraine preventive medications.<h4>Background</h4>While lasmiditan has been proven to be an effective acute treatment for migraine, its effectiveness has not been examined when used concurrently with migraine preventives.<h4>Methods</h4>SAMURAI and SPARTAN were similarly designed, double-blind, phase 3, placebo-controlled studies of patients 18 years or older with 3 to 8 migraine a ...[more]

PMID: 31340760

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine.MethodsSAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan.ResultsThe proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo.ConclusionsA second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo.Trial registrationSAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Project description:BackgroundWhile pain freedom at 2 h is a key primary outcome for current trials for acute treatment of migraine, the relationship between the degree of head pain and other efficacy measures at 2 h has rarely been explored. Following lasmiditan treatment of a migraine attack with moderate or severe head pain, we contrast those who achieve pain freedom with those who achieve mild pain but not pain freedom 2 h post dosing.MethodsPatient-level data were pooled across studies and treatment arms from two Phase 3 trials comparing lasmiditan and placebo, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. This post hoc analysis assessed freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS), freedom from migraine-related functional disability (disability), and improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) in patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom compared to those who experienced 2 h mild pain. Mild pain differs from pain relief which is defined as either mild pain or pain freedom.ResultsPatients who achieved 2 h pain freedom (N = 913), in comparison with those with 2 h mild pain (N = 864), were significantly more likely to experience MBS freedom (91.9% vs. 44.9%), disability freedom (87.1% and 13.4%), and improved PGIC (86.5% and 31.5%) (p < 0.001 for all combinations). In addition, more patients who were pain free experienced both 2 h MBS freedom and 2 h functional disability freedom (83.6%) compared to those with mild pain (10.8%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with pain freedom who did not achieve either MBS or disability freedom (4.6%) was lower than in patients with mild pain (52.4%). Lastly, 55.2% of patients experienced mild pain before disability freedom compared to 72.1% who experienced pain freedom and disability freedom at the same time.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that, at 2 h post treatment, patients who were pain free were more likely to achieve other outcomes including freedom from their MBS, freedom from migraine-related functional disability, and improved PGIC compared to those with mild pain, confirming that 2 h pain freedom is more robustly associated with other clinical outcomes than the 2 h mild pain endpoint.Trial registrationSAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ); SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ).

Project description:Background Lasmiditan (LTN) is a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. We present detailed safety findings from the placebo-controlled, double-blind Phase 3 study, of LTN treatment across 4 attacks (CENTURION). Methods Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to LTN 200 mg (LTN200), LTN100, or a control group that received placebo for 3 attacks and LTN50 for either the 3rd or 4th attack (1:1). Safety analyses were conducted for patients who took ≥1 dose of study drug and, in some cases, those who took all 4 doses. Results Overall, 1471 patients treated 4494 attacks. The incidences of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs) were - placebo, n=2 (0.4 %); LTN100, n=1 (0.2 %); LTN200, n=2 (0.4 %); no specific treatment-emergent SAE was reported in more than one patient. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, nausea, vertigo, and somnolence; the vast majority were mild or moderate in severity. The incidences of these TEAEs were highest during the first attack and decreased during subsequent attacks. For patients who experienced a common TEAE with the first attack, less than 45 % experienced the same event in subsequent attacks. Patients who did not experience an event in the 1st attack infrequently experienced the same event in subsequent attacks. The time of onset of the common TEAE ranged from ~40 min to 1 h (dependent upon TEAE) and, for individual TEAE, the onset was similar across attacks. Duration was dependent upon TEAE and attack. It was shortest for paresthesia (< 2 h for all attacks); it ranged from 1.8 to 5.5 h for other common TEAEs and was generally similar across attacks. Serotonin syndrome was reported for 2 patients post LTN dosing; there were no meaningful differences across treatment groups in suicidality; there was no evidence of an increase in motor vehicle accidents. Conclusion In this blinded, controlled, multiple-attack study, LTN was associated with generally mild or moderate CNS-related TEAEs of short duration. TEAEs tended to decrease in frequency across the 4 attacks. Trial registration NCT03670810 Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01343-2.

Project description:IntroductionUbrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for acute treatment of migraine that can be used to treat breakthrough attacks in individuals taking preventive treatment for migraine. We evaluated the impact of preventive medication use on the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis was an analysis of pooled efficacy data from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials, in which efficacy of ubrogepant was assessed at 2 h after taking study medication for pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom (MBS), and pain relief. In addition, a long-term safety (LTS) extension trial was completed where safety was assessed on the basis of incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were compared between participants with or without prior (within 6 months) preventive medication use (anticonvulsants, beta blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA). For efficacy analyses, data were pooled across ACHIEVE trials for the 50 mg and placebo groups; for safety analyses, data for all dose groups (50 mg and 100 mg) in the LTS trial were pooled.ResultsPreventive treatments were used by 417 of 2247 (18.6%) participants analyzed in the ACHIEVE trials and by 143 of 813 (17.5%) participants in the LTS trial. Responder rates for all outcomes were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment within each dose group (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted across the different preventive medications. Rates and types of TEAEs were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported.ConclusionEfficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were similar between participants with or without prior or current use of concomitant preventive medication.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), and NCT02873221 (long-term safety trial).

Project description:BackgroundIn the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsData included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings.ResultsAcross 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant.ConclusionsThe efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized.ObjectiveTo describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials.MethodA systematic literature review, following a pre-specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine.ResultsThe initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine-specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache-specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache-related patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non-headache-specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed across publications.ConclusionPublications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear "standardized" set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross-trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine.

Project description:IntroductionNumerous medications are used for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (CM), including oral treatments, onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX), and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Despite substantial clinical trial evidence, less is published about the real-world experience of these treatments based on data routinely collected from a variety of sources. This systematic review assessed real-world evidence on the effectiveness and safety of preventive treatments for CM in adults.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library with back-referencing and supplementary searches retrieved data published between January 2010 and February 2020. Publications were screened, extracted, and quality assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Search criteria included preventive medications for CM. Evidence was available for topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, CGRP mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab). OnabotulinumtoxinA was most commonly assessed (55 studies), followed by erenumab (six studies), multiple CGRP mAbs (one study), and topiramate (one study). Long-term data (> 1 year) were available for onabotulinumtoxinA only, with erenumab reported up 6 months, topiramate up to 3 months, and multiple CGRP mAbs up to 12 months.ResultsSubstantial data demonstrated that onabotulinumtoxinA reduces the number/frequency of headaches, concomitant acute medication use, and impact of headaches on well-being and daily activity. More limited evidence showed benefits for the same parameters with erenumab. Single studies suggested topiramate and multiple CGRP mAbs decrease the number/frequency of headaches and impact of headaches. To date, onabotulinumtoxinA is the only preventive treatment for CM that has long-term safety data in real-world settings reporting treatment-related adverse events of up to 3 years.ConclusionWhile substantial real-world evidence supports the long-term effectiveness and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA, real-world data on other preventive treatments of CM are currently limited to short term effectiveness due to their more recent approvals.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients using concomitant migraine preventive medications: findings from SAMURAI and SPARTAN, two randomized phase 3 trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets