A Short on Ubrogepant

Migraine is a mysterious disorder characterized by pulsating head ache, which is actually characterized to one side and comes in attacks which will be lasting for about 3-48 hours and can be associated with nausea,vomiting,sensitivity to sound,flashes of light,vertigoand diarrhoea [1]. Most of the drugs which are in current use for actue migraine like triptans, treats the disorder symptomatically. A novel group of drugs has been in research for the migraine which treats the disorder pathologically. Calcitonin gene – related peptide (CGRP) has a major role in the pathophysiology of the disorder and hence CGRP receptor antagonist, known as Gepants are in the research process [2]. Gepants are being studied for the efficacy of treating acute migraine [2]. This article will be a review article about the drug – Ubrogepant, which is approved for treatment of migraine with acute attacks in adults [3].

Effectiveness and safety of erenumab and galcanezumab in the prevention of chronic and episodic migraine: a retrospective cohort study

Aim and Methods: Erenumab and galcanezumab have shown great results for migraine prevention in several clinical trials. However, strict inclusion criteria, absence of concomitant medication and selective outcome report may sometimes be barely representative of the real-world daily practice. Therefore, this observational, retrospective, non-comparative study was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab 140 mg and galcanezumab 120 mg in real-world patients with difficult-to-treat episodic or chronic migraine, who previously did not respond to up to three well-stablished pharmacological alternatives for migraine prevention. A combination of objective well-defined tools and vastly used patient reported outcome measurements were evaluated at baseline and after the administration of 3 and 6 doses. Results: from 180 patients, 142 matched inclusion criteria for the present study. Data here reported shows that erenumab and galcanezumab reduced mean headache days, acute migraine specific medication days, Headache Impact Test score, Migraine Disability Assessment Test score and Visual Analogue Scale score after 3 and 6 doses in real-world patients diagnosed with difficult to treat chronic or episodic migraine (p<0.01). Moreover, acute migraine specific medication days were reduced by a half in, at least, a 50% of the patients enrolled in each of the groups of the study. Both treatments exhibited a great safety profile, rarely leading to discontinuation because of poor tolerance. Conclusions: Erenumab and galcanezumab seem effective and well tolerated for migraine prevention in real-world patients with episodic or chronic migraine who previously failed to oral preventive therapies.

The Effect and Safety of 5-HT1F Receptor Agonist Lasmiditan on Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Migraine has a great impact on public health. Current acute therapies do not satisfy all migraineurs. The novel serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist appears more promising for aborting migraine attacks. Objective. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in treating acute migraine attacks. Methods. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the effect and safety of lasmiditan on migraine. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Results were extracted and pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with a fixed or random-effects model. Results. Based on the four included RCTs, pooled estimates showed that lasmiditan with the 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg doses was superior to placebo at 2 h after the first dose in terms of pain freedom, absence of migraine-associated symptoms, headache relief, no/mild disability, and global impression of change (very much/much better) (RRs ranged from 1.13 to 1.96), except for nausea-free and vomiting-free. Both lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg resulted in significantly fewer patients using rescue medication (100 mg: RR = 0.75 , 95% CI (0.61, 0.92), P = 0.007 ; 200 mg: RR = 0.81 , 95% CI (0.66, 0.99), P = 0.04 ) at 2-24 h postdose, compared with placebo. Safety data showed that the proportion of patients reporting at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the incidence of most common TEAEs such as dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, somnolence, and nausea was higher in the lasmiditan groups (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg), compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between lasmiditan and placebo in terms of cardiovascular-related TEAEs ( RR = 2.75 , 95% CI (0.81, 9.37), P = 0.11 ). Compared with lasmiditan 100 mg, lasmiditan 200 mg was more effective in pain freedom at 2 h after the first dose ( RR = 0.83 , 95% CI (0.74, 0.94), P = 0.004 ) but associated with a higher risk of reporting at least one TEAE ( RR = 0.88 , 95% CI (0.81, 0.96), P = 0.006 ). Conclusions. Lasmiditan with the 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg doses are effective and safe in acute migraine treatment. Lasmiditan 200 mg is more effective than lasmiditan 100 mg in pain freedom, while lasmiditan 100 mg is better tolerated in the short-term follow-up. Further larger sample-size RCTs are required to verify the applicability and tolerability in the long term.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab in Japanese migraine patients with prior preventive treatment failure or concomitant preventive treatment: subgroup analyses of a phase 3, randomized trial

Background These subgroup analyses of a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of erenumab 70 mg in Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) (“failed-yes” and “failed-no” subgroups) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment (“concomitant preventive-yes” and “concomitant preventive-no” subgroups). Methods Overall, 261 patients were randomized; 130 and 131 patients to erenumab 70 mg and placebo, respectively. Subgroup analyses evaluated the change from baseline to Months 4–6 in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) (primary endpoint), achievement of a ≥50% reduction in mean MMD, and change from baseline in mean monthly acute migraine-specific medication (MSM) treatment days. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also evaluated. Results Of the 261 patients randomized, 117 (44.8%) and 92 (35.3%) patients were in the failed-yes and concomitant preventive-yes subgroups, respectively. Erenumab 70 mg demonstrated consistent efficacy across all subgroups, with greater reductions from baseline in mean MMD versus placebo at Months 4–6 (treatment difference versus placebo [95% CI], failed-yes: − 1.9 [− 3.3, − 0.4]; failed-no: − 1.4 [− 2.6, − 0.3]; concomitant preventive-yes: − 1.7 [− 3.3, 0.0]; concomitant preventive-no: − 1.6 [− 2.6, − 0.5]). Similar results were seen for achievement of ≥50% reduction in mean MMD and change from baseline in mean monthly acute MSM treatment days. The safety profile of erenumab 70 mg was similar across subgroups, and similar to placebo in each subgroup. Conclusion Erenumab was associated with clinically relevant improvements in all efficacy endpoints and was well tolerated across all subgroups of Japanese migraine patients with/without prior preventive treatment failure(s) and with/without concomitant preventive treatment. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT03812224. Registered January 23, 2019.

Progress in the Treatment of Migraine Attacks: From Traditional Approaches to Eptinezumab

Migraine is the second cause of disability and of lost years of healthy life worldwide. Migraine is characterized by recurrent headache attacks and accompanying disabling symptoms lasting 4–48 h. In episodic migraine, attacks occur in less than 15 days per month and in chronic migraine, in more than 15 monthly days. Whilst successful translation of pharmacological discoveries into efficacious therapeutics has been achieved in the preventative therapy of chronic migraine, treatment of acute migraine suffers the lack of effective advancements. An effective treatment affords complete freedom from pain two hours after therapy and provides the absence of the most bothersome symptom (MBS) associated with migraine after 2 h. However, available anti-migraine abortive treatments for acute attacks do not represent an effective and safe treatment for all the populations treated. In particular, the most used specific treatment is represented by triptans that offer 2-h sustained freedom from pain achieved in 18–50% of patients but they are contraindicated in coronary artery disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease due to the vasoconstriction at the basis of their pharmacologic action. The most novel therapies, i.e., gepants and ditans, are without sufficient post-marketing data for secure use. Here, an attempt is proposed to analyse the rational basis and evidence in favour of investigating the efficacy and safety in acute migraine attacks of eptinezumab, i.e., monoclonal antibody (mAb) directed towards calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) unique for intravenous infusion administration.