Dataset Information

Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In 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).

Methods

Data 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.

Results

Across 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Polavieja P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9258126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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?<?0.05). Primary efficacy outcome (pain-free at 2?h), key secondary outcome (most bothersome symptom-free at 2?h) and all other efficacy outcomes were not significantly different between patients using or not using migraine preventives (all interaction p-values ?0.1). Rates of adverse events were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. CONCLUSIONS:Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo for the acute treatment of migraine in patients concurrently using migraine preventive medications. Lasmiditan efficacy and safety measures were similar for patients using and not using preventive medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION:SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174). Registered 18 March 2015.

Project description:IntroductionThis MONONOFU trial subgroup analysis evaluates the efficacy of lasmiditan across patient and migraine characteristics in Japanese patients with migraine.MethodsMONONOFU trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:7:6:7 ratio to receive lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo for a single migraine attack within 4 h of pain onset. Efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo was evaluated at 2 h post dose for proportion of patients with headache pain freedom. Efficacy was assessed across patient characteristics (age, sex, body weight, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), and comorbidity of tension-type headache), migraine disease characteristics (history of migraine with aura, migraine prevention therapy, triptan response, and triptan use or nonuse), and migraine attack characteristics (headache severity, aggressive headache, attack during perimenstrual period, time to dosing, time of dosing, experienced treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of dizziness, and experienced TEAE of somnolence). Logistic regression was used; all subgroup analyses were not analyzed with multiplicity-adjusted statistical tests.ResultsTreatment-by-subgroup interactions (by each arm) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups and lasmiditan doses, except for CVRF (100 mg and 200 mg), migraine with aura (50 mg), triptan response (50 mg), and time to dosing (200 mg). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by overall) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups, except for CVRFs. Higher proportions of patients were pain free at 2 h post dose when treated with lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg) versus placebo, irrespective of most patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics.ConclusionAlthough few interactions were observed, lasmiditan could be a promising acute treatment option in a wide range of Japanese patients with migraine, as efficacy is not generally influenced by patient and migraine characteristics.

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:ImportanceMigraine is one of the most common neurologic disorders in children and adolescents. However, a quantitative comparison of multiple preventive pharmacologic treatments in the pediatric population is lacking.ObjectiveTo examine whether prophylactic pharmacologic treatments are more effective than placebo and whether there are differences between drugs regarding efficacy, safety, and acceptability.Data sourcesSystematic review and network meta-analysis of studies in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, and PsycINFO published through July 2, 2018.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of prophylactic pharmacologic treatments in children and adolescents diagnosed as having episodic migraine were included. Abstract, title, and full-text screening were conducted independently by 4 reviewers.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis network meta-analysis guidelines. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes, calculated as standardized mean differences for primary outcomes and risk ratios for discontinuation rates, were assessed in a random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were efficacy (ie, migraine frequency, number of migraine days, number of headache days, headache frequency, or headache index), safety (ie, treatment discontinuation owing to adverse events), and acceptability (ie, treatment discontinuation for any reason).ResultsTwenty-three studies (2217 patients) were eligible for inclusion. Prophylactic pharmacologic treatments included antiepileptics, antidepressants, calcium channel blockers, antihypertensive agents, and food supplements. In the short term (<5 months), propranolol (standard mean difference, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.03-1.17) and topiramate (standard mean difference, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15) were significantly more effective than placebo. However, the 95% prediction intervals for these medications contained the null effect. No significant long-term effects for migraine prophylaxis relative to placebo were found for any intervention.Conclusions and relevanceProphylactic pharmacologic treatments have little evidence supporting efficacy in pediatric migraine. Future research could (1) identify factors associated with individual responses to pharmacologic prophylaxis, (2) analyze fluctuations of migraine attack frequency over time and determine the most clinically relevant length of probable prophylactic treatment, and (3) identify nonpharmacologic targets for migraine prophylaxis.

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:ObjectiveRimegepant 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.MethodsMatching-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.ResultsWhen 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.ConclusionsWhen 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.