Nahas, Stephanie J.

Abstract Objective To assess the role of small‐molecule calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) in the acute treatment of migraine, particularly in relation to triptan treatments. Background Triptans have established efficacy and are widely prescribed for the acute treatment of migraine. However, triptans may not be recommended for some individuals due to cardiovascular contraindications and precautions, as well as other comorbidities, and many may discontinue triptans because of inadequate or inconsistent symptom relief or poor tolerability. Several gepants are also indicated for the treatment of migraine (both acute and preventive), and their demonstrated efficacy and safety may address some challenges associated with triptans. Methods This narrative review addresses considerations for the acute treatment of migraine through summarizing literature and data from preclinical studies and clinical trials of triptans and gepants. Results We consider triptans and gepants, where available, first‐line treatment options for the acute treatment of migraine. Triptans may be prescribed in the absence of contraindications, significant risk of cardiovascular disease, or risk for or history of medication‐overuse headache. In those who have contraindications or precautions for triptans, those who do not have an adequate response to triptans, and those unable to tolerate them, gepants are often an appropriate option. The efficacy and safety of gepants for the acute treatment of migraine has been established through clinical trials and open‐label extension studies and based on real‐world evidence. Gepants have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability in triptan insufficient responders, perhaps because of their distinct mechanisms of action. Additionally, the safety of gepants, including relative cardiovascular safety, is supported in pivotal controlled trials and open‐label extension trials. In experimental settings and through their use as preventive treatment for migraine, gepants appear unlikely to produce medication‐overuse headache. In addition, one gepant (ubrogepant) has demonstrated efficacy in preventing headache onset when given during the prodrome, a finding that has not been demonstrated for triptans. A single‐arm, open‐label study of naratriptan given during the prodrome suggested fewer subsequent headaches, but interpretation is limited because there was no contemporaneous control group. Limited head‐to‐head clinical trials comparing gepants and triptans have not demonstrated significant differences. Prescribers of both triptans and gepants should be mindful of potential drug–drug interactions. Conclusions Key advantages of gepants include their favorable tolerability, efficacy for the acute treatment of both the prodromal/premonitory phase (ubrogepant) and the headache phase of migraine (ubrogepant, rimegepant, zavegepant), lack of cardiovascular contraindications, and lack of association with medication‐overuse headache. Disadvantages include limitations due to cost and access and CYP3A4 drug interactions for most gepants. Together, the advantages may help to optimize patient care and lead to better persistence and effectiveness in a real‐world setting. Head‐to‐head studies are needed to clarify the comparative effectiveness of triptans and gepants.

Abstract Objective To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Background Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. Methods An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000‐305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9–12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1–12 and 9–12 for atogepant and during weeks 9–12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). Results In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9–74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9–60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4–49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1–9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9–75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079–$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901–$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusions Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Background Comparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice. Methods An anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1–12. Results There were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1–12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: −1.65 [−2.49, −0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles. Conclusion In this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.