Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As one of the novel therapeutic drugs that targets Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), 75 mg rimegepant has been used for the acute management of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological diseases worldwide. Several clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for the acute management of migraine, but no systematic review of existing literature has been performed. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant in treatment of patients with migraine.

Method

Pubmed, Embased, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 2001 to August 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four RCTs with 3,827 patients were finally included in our study.

Result

We pooled 3,827 patients from four RCTs, and the primary endpoints were freedom from pain, most bothersome symptom, and pain relief at 2 hr post dose. We found that 75 mg rimegepant led to significant freedom from pain (P < 0.001), pain relief (P < 0.001), and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (P < 0.001) at 2 hr post dose compared with the placebo. In addition, there was no statistically significant increase in adverse events compared with the placebo.

Conclusions

75 mg rimegepant had good efficacy and safety for acute treatment of migraine. Further studies are needed to compare the efficacy of rimegepant with traditional drugs for acute management of migraine.

SUBMITTER: Gao B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6992660 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Gao Bixi B Yang Yanbo Y Wang Zilan Z Sun Yue Y Chen Zhouqing Z Zhu Yun Y Wang Zhong Z

Frontiers in pharmacology 20200124

<h4>Background</h4>As one of the novel therapeutic drugs that targets Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), 75 mg rimegepant has been used for the acute management of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological diseases worldwide. Several clinical trials have been conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for the acute management of migraine, but no systematic review of existing literature has been performed. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to investigate ...[more]

PMID: 32038251

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThere have been no prior trials directly comparing the efficacy of different calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists for migraine prevention. Reported are the results from the first head-to-head study of two CGRP antagonists, galcanezumab (monoclonal antibody) versus rimegepant (gepant), for the prevention of episodic migraine.MethodsIn this 3-month, double-blind, double-dummy study, participants were randomized (1:1) to subcutaneous (SC) galcanezumab 120 mg per month (after a 240 mg loading dose) and a placebo oral disintegrating tablet (ODT) every other day (q.o.d.) or to rimegepant 75 mg ODT q.o.d. and a monthly SC placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with a ≥ 50% reduction in migraine headache days per month from baseline across the 3-month double-blind treatment period. Key secondary endpoints were overall mean change from baseline in: migraine headache days per month across 3 months and at month 3, 2, and 1; migraine headache days per month with acute migraine medication use; Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive domain score at month 3; and a ≥ 75% and 100% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month across 3 months.ResultsOf 580 randomized participants (galcanezumab: 287, rimegepant: 293; mean age: 42 years), 83% were female and 81% Caucasian. Galcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant in achieving a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in migraine headache days per month (62% versus 61% respectively; P = 0.70). Given the pre-specified multiple testing procedure, key secondary endpoints cannot be considered statistically significant. Overall, treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 21% of participants, with no significant differences between study intervention groups.ConclusionsGalcanezumab was not superior to rimegepant for the primary endpoint; however, both interventions demonstrated efficacy as preventive treatments in participants with episodic migraine. The efficacy and safety profiles observed in galcanezumab-treated participants were consistent with previous studies.Trial registrationClinTrials.gov-NCT05127486 (I5Q-MC-CGBD).

Project description:Background Many drugs are prescribed in relieving acute migraine attacks, we aim to compare metoclopramide with other antimigraine drugs. Methods We searched online databases like PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science till June 2022 for RCTs that compared metoclopramide alone with placebo or active drugs. The main outcomes were the mean change in headache score and complete headache relief. The secondary outcomes were the rescue medications need, side effects, nausea and recurrence rate. We qualitatively reviewed the outcomes. Then, we performed the network meta-analyses (NMAs) when it was possible. which were done by the Frequentist method using the MetaInsight online software. Results Sixteen studies were included with a total of 1934 patients: 826 received metoclopramide, 302 received placebo, and 806 received other active drugs. Metoclopramide was effective in reducing headache outcomes even for 24 h. The intravenous route was the most chosen route in the included studies and showed significant positive results regarding headache outcomes; however, the best route whether intramuscular, intravenous, or suppository was not compared in the previous studies. Also, both 10 and 20 mg doses of metoclopramide were effective in improving headache outcomes; however, there was no direct comparison between both doses and the 10 mg dose was the most frequently used dosage. In NMA of headache change after 30 min or 1 h, metoclopramide effect came after granisetron, ketorolac, chlorpromazine, and Dexketoprofen trometamol. Only granisetron’s effect was significantly higher than metoclopramide’s effect which was only significantly higher than placebo and sumatriptan. In headache-free symptoms, only prochlorperazine was non-significantly higher than metoclopramide which was higher than other medications and showed significantly higher effects only with placebo. In rescue medication, metoclopramide’s effect was only non-significantly lower than prochlorperazine and chlorpromazine while its effect was higher than other drugs and showed higher significant effects only than placebo and valproate. In the recurrence rate, studies showed no significant difference between metoclopramide and other drugs. Metoclopramide significantly decreased nausea more than the placebo. Regarding side effects, metoclopramide showed a lower incidence of mild side effects than pethidine and chlorpromazine and showed a higher incidence of mild side effects than placebo, dexamethasone, and ketorolac. The reported extrapyramidal symptoms with metoclopramide were dystonia or akathisia. Conclusion A dose of 10 mg IV Metoclopramide was effective in relieving migraine attacks with minimal side effects. Compared to other active drugs, it only showed a lower significant effect compared with granisetron regarding headache change while it showed significantly higher effects only with placebo in both rescue medication needs and headache-free symptoms and valproate in only rescue medication need. Also, it significantly decreased headache scores more than placebo and sumatriptan. However, more studies are needed to support our results. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12883-023-03259-7.

Project description:IntroductionUbrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant were demonstrated in two pivotal phase 3, single-attack, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II).MethodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the ACHIEVE trials to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg (the only dose evaluated in both trials) versus placebo across a large population of participants with migraine. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (including photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 h post dose. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 2 h post dose, sustained pain relief and pain freedom from 2 to 24 h, and absence of specific migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post dose.ResultsA total of 2240 eligible participants were randomized to placebo (n = 1122) or ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 1118) in the ACHIEVE trials. Pain freedom at 2 h was reported in 13.0% of participants in the pooled placebo group and 20.5% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34, 2.22; P < 0.001). Absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 h was reported by 27.6% in the pooled placebo group and by 38.7% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.37, 2.05; P < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) within 48 h after the initial or optional second dose were reported by 11.5 and 11.2% of participants in the pooled placebo and pooled ubrogepant 50 mg groups, respectively. The most common AE was nausea (1.8 and 1.9%, respectively). No serious AEs related to treatment or discontinuations due to AEs were reported.ConclusionThese results further support the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: ACHIEVE I: NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II: NCT02867709.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intranasal lidocaine has been shown to be effective in treating patients with acute migraines; however, its efficacy is still controversial. In this study, we intend to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator for the treatment of migraines. METHOD:PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched from their inceptions to November 2018. Randomized controlled studies investigating the efficacy of intranasal lidocaine compared with a placebo or an active comparator were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized data using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was pain intensity. The secondary outcomes were success rate, the need for rescue medicine, and relapse occurrences. We registered the study at PROSPERO with an ID of CRD42018116226. RESULTS:Six studies (n = 613) were eligible for the meta-analysis. Overall, the results revealed that the study population who was administered intranasal lidocaine had a lower pain intensity at 5 min (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.61; 95% CI = -1.04 to -0.19) and 15 min (SMD = -0.72; 95% CI = -1.14 to -0.19), had a higher success rate (RR = 3.55; 95% CI: 1.89 to 6.64) and a less frequent need for rescue medicine (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.72) than the control group. These beneficial effects were not observed when an antiemetic was administered. Furthermore, intranasal lidocaine use had no significant influence on the relapse rate (RR = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.51-1.56), regardless of the use of antiemetics. Using lidocaine caused local irritation in up to 49.4% of the patients in one report but did not cause major adverse events. CONCLUSION:Intranasal lidocaine can be considered a useful option for patients with an acute migraine. It yields a high success rate, a low pain intensity, an infrequent need for rescue medicine, and tolerable adverse events. The administration of antiemetics is an important confounding factor.

Project description:Flat warts are a common and recurrent skin disease that has no specific antiviral treatment. As an alternative or complementary therapy, fire needle therapy has been widely used in the treatment of flat warts. The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of fire needle therapy for flat warts. Using the search terms "flat warts" and "fire needle," we searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Chinese biomedical (SinoMed) database, and the China Science and Technology Journal databases for studies until March 12, 2020. Randomized controlled trials comparing fire needle therapies with conventional therapies were also included. We calculated the risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We analyzed 29 trials involving 2,666 patients. Results showed that the use of fire needle therapy alone may have a higher efficacy rate compared with that of an immunomodulator (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.20, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.006; RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.37, I 2 = 70%, P = 0.02, respectively) or tretinoin (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.55, I 2 = 0%, P < 0.00001), with a lower risk of blisters (P = 0.03) or erythema (P = 0.04), but with a higher risk of pigmentation (P = 0.02). We also determined the efficacy rate of fire needle therapy in combination with traditional Chinese medicine (RR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.10 to 1.23, I 2 = 21%, P < 0.00001), immunomodulators (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.28, I 2 = 33%, P = 0.0005), imiquimod (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.42, P = 0.02), or as multidrug therapies (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.24, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.0001) and found that the combination treatments could reduce recurrence rates (P < 0.00001) and provided a lower risk of desquamation (P = 0.006). In conclusion, fire needle therapy seems to be effective for flat warts, with a reduced incidence of adverse events, such as blisters, erythema, and desquamation, but may increase incidence of pigmentation.

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.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background

Method

Result

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Evidence From Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets