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: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: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:BackgroundLasmiditan (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).MethodsPatients 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.ResultsOverall, 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.ConclusionIn 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 registrationNCT03670810.