Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetics and safety of ubrogepant when coadministered with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibody migraine preventives in participants with migraine: A randomized phase 1b drug-drug interaction study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of two calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), erenumab and galcanezumab, on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant.

Background

People taking CGRP-targeted mAbs for migraine prevention sometimes take ubrogepant, an oral small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, for acute treatment of breakthrough migraine attacks.

Design

In this two-arm, multicenter, open-label, phase 1b trial, adults with migraine were randomized to arm 1 (ubrogepant ± erenumab) or arm 2 (ubrogepant ± galcanezumab). The PK profile of ubrogepant was characterized for administration before and 4 days after CGRP-targeted mAb injection. Participants received single-dose ubrogepant 100 mg on day 1, subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg (arm 1) or galcanezumab 240 mg (arm 2) on day 8, and ubrogepant 100 mg once daily on days 12-15. In each study arm, serial blood samples were drawn on days 1 and 12 for measurement of plasma ubrogepant concentrations. The primary outcomes were area under the plasma ubrogepant concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to t post-dose (AUC_0- _t ) and from time 0 to infinity (AUC_0-inf ), and maximum plasma concentration (C_max ) of ubrogepant when ubrogepant was administered before or after a single dose of erenumab or galcanezumab. Vital signs and laboratory parameters were monitored.

Results

Forty participants enrolled (20 per arm; mean [standard deviation] ages, 32.2 [8.9] and 38.4 [8.8] years; 50% [10/20] and 60% [12/20] female in arms 1 and 2, respectively). There were no significant differences in ubrogepant C_max after versus before erenumab administration (geometric least-squares mean [LSM] ratio, 1.04 [90% CI, 0.93-1.16]), and no significant differences in AUC_0- _t (1.06 [0.96-1.16]) or AUC_0-inf (1.05 [0.96-1.15]). Similarly, ubrogepant C_max (1.00 [90% CI, 0.82-1.20]), AUC_0- _t (1.05 [0.90-1.23]), and AUC_0-inf (1.05 [0.90-1.22]) geometric LSM ratios were statistically equivalent after galcanezumab versus ubrogepant alone. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar to those reported with each treatment alone. No serious TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, or clinically relevant changes in laboratory parameters or vital signs were reported.

Conclusions

The PK profile of ubrogepant was not significantly changed and no safety concerns were identified when ubrogepant was coadministered with erenumab or galcanezumab.

SUBMITTER: Jakate A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252052 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction and the safety and tolerability when ubrogepant and sumatriptan are coadministered in a Phase 1 study in healthy participants, and to inform the safety and tolerability of ubrogepant alone and in combination with triptans in Phase 3 trials in participants with migraine.BackgroundCalcitonin gene-related peptide is a potent vasodilatory neurotransmitter believed to play a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Ubrogepant (UBRELVY™) is a potent and selective antagonist of the human calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor approved for the acute treatment of migraine. Sumatriptan is a serotonin receptor agonist and the most commonly used triptan for the acute treatment of migraine. Ubrogepant could be prescribed with triptans.DesignThe Phase 1 study was a single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover, single-dose, pharmacokinetic interaction study, where participants received each of 3 oral treatments with a 7-day washout period between treatments: single dose of ubrogepant 100 mg, single dose of sumatriptan 100 mg, and ubrogepant 100 mg plus sumatriptan 100 mg. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a model-independent approach. The ACHIEVE I and II trials were 2 multicenter, single-attack, randomized, Phase 3 trials in adults with a history of migraine with or without aura. Participants had the option to take a second dose of study medication or rescue medication to treat a nonresponding migraine or a migraine recurrence from 2 to 48 hours after the initial dose of study medication. Rescue medication options included acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, anti-emetics, or triptans. Treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated up to 30 days after the last dose in the Phase 1 and Phase 3 studies.ResultsUbrogepant median time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (3 hours [range: 1-5 hours] vs 1.5 hours [range: 1-4 hours]), mean maximum plasma concentration was reduced by 24% (coefficient of variation: 37.4%) when ubrogepant was coadministered with sumatriptan (n = 29) compared with ubrogepant administered alone (N = 30). No significant effect was observed on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve of ubrogepant. Sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration showed no significant change when sumatriptan was coadministered with ubrogepant (n = 29), but the sumatriptan time to maximum plasma concentration was delayed (1 hour [range: 0.5-5 hours] vs 3 hours [range: 0.5-6 hours]. No treatment-emergent adverse events were reported with the coadministration of ubrogepant 100 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg in the Phase 1 study. The pooled safety data from ACHIEVE trials (N = 1938) showed similar rates of treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events between participants who took ubrogepant alone and participants who took ubrogepant and a triptan as a rescue medication (14.9% [53/355] vs 12.8% [5/39] in the ubrogepant 100 mg treatment group, respectively).ConclusionsAlthough there were slight alterations in ubrogepant pharmacokinetic parameters when coadministered with sumatriptan, such changes are expected to have minimal clinical relevance, especially because no changes were seen in sumatriptan area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration when coadministered with ubrogepant. Coadministration of ubrogepant with sumatriptan was well tolerated in healthy participants in the Phase 1 study, and coadministration of ubrogepant with triptans was well tolerated in participants with migraine in the Phase 3 trials. No new safety concerns for ubrogepant were identified across all trials.

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 clinical practice, α₂-adrenoceptor agonists have been adjunctively administered with psychostimulants for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Two studies have examined the adjunctive use of guanfacine extended release (GXR, Intuniv®; Shire Development LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) with psychostimulants in children and adolescents with a suboptimal response to psychostimulant treatment. However, the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between GXR and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX, Vyvanse®; Shire US LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) has not been thoroughly evaluated.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to examine the pharmacokinetics of GXR 4 mg and LDX 50 mg given as single doses alone and in combination.Study designThis was an open-label, randomized, three-period crossover, DDI study.SettingThe study was conducted in a single clinical research center.ParticipantsForty-two healthy adults were randomized in this study.InterventionsSubjects were administered single oral doses of GXR 4 mg, LDX 50 mg, or GXR and LDX in combination.Main outcome measuresBlood samples collected predose and up to 72 h postdose assessed guanfacine, LDX, and d-amphetamine levels. Bioequivalence was defined as the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) falling within the bioequivalence reference interval (0.80-1.25). Safety measures included adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs).ResultsForty subjects completed the study. Following administration of LDX alone or in combination with GXR, the statistical comparisons of the AUC0-∞ and Cmax of d-amphetamine fell entirely within the reference interval. For guanfacine, the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of AUC∞ for the two treatments was within the bioequivalence criteria, but for Cmax the upper bound of the 90% CI exceeded the standard range for bioequivalence by 7%. This relatively small change is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42.9% of subjects; the most commonly reported TEAEs included dizziness (5.0, 7.3, and 7.3%) and headache (7.5, 4.9, and 7.3%) following administration of GXR, LDX, and GXR and LDX in combination, respectively. Clinically significant ECG abnormalities occurred in one subject following administration of LDX and in one subject following coadministration of GXR and LDX.ConclusionsIn healthy adults, coadministration of GXR and LDX did not result in a clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic DDI compared with either treatment alone. No unique TEAEs were observed with coadministration of GXR and LDX compared with either treatment alone.