Back to Authors

Trugman, Joel M.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2376-8878

Mayo Clinic

AbbVie (United States)

Citations 25

Time course of efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications
Goadsby, Peter J. , Blumenfeld, Andrew , Kalidas, Kavita, Adams, Aubrey Manack, Jakate, Abhijeet , Liu, Chengcheng , Szegedi, Armin, Trugman, Joel M. , Goadsby, Peter J , Lipton, Richard B. , Dodick, David W.

Cephalalgia | November 26, 2020 | Volume: 41 | Issue: 5 | Pages: 546-560

10.1177/0333102420970523 Get It

Background The full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated. Methods ACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this post-hoc analysis. Results Participants’ (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0–1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14–1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33–2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2–24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1–2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3–2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1–2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0–1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC 90 for nearly 12 h. Conclusions Evaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine. Trial registration: ACHIEVE I (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02828020) and ACHIEVE II (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02867709)
Ubrogepant, an Acute Treatment for Migraine, Improved Patient‐Reported Functional Disability and Satisfaction in 2 Single‐Attack Phase 3 Randomized Trials, ACHIEVE I and II
Shewale, Anand R. , Zhao, Sihui, Trugman, Joel M. , Yu, Sung Yun , Viswanathan, Hema N., Halker Singh, Rashmi B, Dodick, David W. , Lipton, Richard B. , Ailani, Jessica , Singh, Rashmi B. Halker

Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain | February 19, 2020 | Volume: 60 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 686-700

10.1111/head.13766 Get It

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of ubrogepant on patient‐reported functional disability, satisfaction with study medication, and global impression of change. Background Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute treatment of migraine. In 2 phase 3 trials (ACHIEVE I and II), ubrogepant demonstrated efficacy vs placebo on the 2 co‐primary endpoints of headache pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom at 2 hours post dose for the 50 and 100 mg doses. Patient‐reported outcomes, such as functional disability, satisfaction, and patient global impression of change, can provide additional evidence of the efficacy of an acute treatment for migraine on clinically meaningful and patient‐relevant outcomes. Methods ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II were multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, parallel‐group, single‐attack trials in adults (18‐75 years) with migraine. In ACHIEVE I, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 50 or 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant 25 or 50 mg to treat a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain. Participants rated ability to perform daily activities on the Functional Disability Scale, before dosing and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours after the initial dose; satisfaction with study medication at 2 and 24 hours; and impression of overall change in migraine on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours. In prespecified analyses for each trial, each outcome was compared between each ubrogepant dose group and the relevant placebo group. Data were pooled from the ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups of the 2 trials in a post hoc analysis. Results In ACHIEVE I, 559 participants were randomized to placebo, 556 to ubrogepant 50 mg, and 557 to ubrogepant 100 mg; in ACHIEVE II, 563 were randomized to placebo, 561 to ubrogepant 25 mg, and 562 to ubrogepant 50 mg. At 2 hours post dose, significantly higher proportions of ubrogepant‐treated participants vs placebo‐treated participants reported being able to function normally (ACHIEVE I: ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.6% [171/421], P = .0012 vs placebo; ubrogepant 100 mg, 42.9% [192/448], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 29.8% [136/456]; ACHIEVE II: ubrogepant 25 mg, 42.6% [185/434], P = .0015 vs placebo; ubrogepant 50 mg, 40.5% [188/464], P = .0118 vs placebo; placebo, 34.2% [156/456]; pooled 50 mg, 40.6% [359/885], vs pooled placebo, 32.0% [292/912]; P < .0001), were satisfied/extremely satisfied with study medication (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 36.3% [147/405], P < .0001 vs placebo; 100 mg, 35.8% [149/416], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 24.1% [104/432]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 35.1% [141/402], P = .0018 vs placebo; 50 mg, 37.8% [163/431], P < .0001 vs placebo; placebo, 24.8% [106/427]; pooled ubrogepant 50 mg, 37.1% [310/836], vs pooled placebo, 24.5% [210/859]; P < .0001), and indicated that their migraine was much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale (ACHIEVE I: 50 mg, 34.4% [103/299], P = .0006 vs placebo; 100 mg, 34.3% [102/297], P = .0009 vs placebo; placebo, 22.0% [69/313]; ACHIEVE II: 25 mg, 34.1% [124/364], P < .0001 vs placebo; 50 mg, 33.4% [131/392], P = .0002 vs placebo; placebo, 20.7% [78/376]; pooled 50 mg, 33.9% [234/691], vs pooled placebo, 21.3% [147/689]; P < .0001). Conclusions A significantly higher proportion of participants treated with ubrogepant were able to function normally, were satisfied with the study medication, and reported clinically meaningful improvement compared with those receiving placebo. The results reinforce the potential benefits of ubrogepant on patient‐centered outcomes in the acute treatment of migraine.
Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine
Lu, Kaifeng , Finnegan, Michelle , Trugman, Joel M. , Szegedi, Armin, Dodick, David W. , Lipton, Richard B. , Ailani, Jessica

New England Journal of Medicine | December 4, 2019 | Volume: 381 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 2230-2241

10.1056/nejmoa1813049 Get It

Effect of Ubrogepant vs Placebo on Pain and the Most Bothersome Associated Symptom in the Acute Treatment of Migraine
Lu, Kaifeng , Finnegan, Michelle , Szegedi, Armin, Trugman, Joel M. , Lipton, Richard B. , Dodick, David W. , Ailani, Jessica

JAMA | November 19, 2019 | Volume: 322 | Issue: 19 | Pages: 1887

10.1001/jama.2019.16711 Get It

Activity enhances dopaminergic long-duration response in Parkinson disease
Kang, Un Jung , Auinger, Peggy , Fahn, Stanley, Oakes, David , Shoulson, Ira , Kieburtz, Karl, Rudolph, Alice, Seibyl, John , Olanow, C. Warren , Tanner, Caroline M., Schifitto, Giovanni , Zhao, Hongwei , Reyes, Lydia, Shinaman, Aileen, Comella, Cynthia L., Blasucci, Lucia M., Samanta, Johan, Stacy, Mark, Williamson, Kelli, Harrigan, Mary, Greene, Paul, Ford, Blair, Moskowitz, Carol, Truong, Daniel , Pathak, Mayank , Jankovic, Joseph, Ondo, William G. , Atassi, Farah, Hunter, Christine , Jacques, Carol, Lannon, Margaret C., Russell, David , Jennings, Danna , Fussell, B., Schwarzschild, Michael A. , Growdon, John H., Tennis, Marsha, Gauthier, Serge , Panisset, Michel , Hall, Jean, Gancher, Stephen T., Hammerstad, John P., Stone, Claudia, Alexander-Brown, Barbara, Molho, Eric , Brown, Diane, Evans, Sharon, Manyam, Bala V., Simpson, Patricia , Wulbrecht, Brian, Whetteckey, Jacqueline, Roberts, Ted E, King, Pamela, Zesiewicz, Theresa A. , Gauger, Lisa, Trugman, Joel M. , Wooten, G. Frederick, Rost‐Ruffner, Elke, Suchowersky, Oksana , Ranawaya, Ranjit, Wood, Susan M. , Pantella, Carol , Kurlan, Roger, Richard, Irene Hegeman, Pearson, N. Shirlene, Caviness, John N., Adler, Charles, Lind, Marlene, Siderowf, Andrew , Colcher, Amy, Lloyd, Mary, Weiner, William J., Shulman, Lisa M. , Koller, William C., Lyons, Kelly , Feldman, Robert G., Ellias, Samuel A., Thomas, Cathi-Ann, Juncos, Jorge L., Watts, Ray L., Partlow, Anna, Tetrud, James W., Togasaki, Daniel M., Stewart, Tracy, Mark, Margery H., Sage, Jacob I., Caputo, Debbie, Gould, Harry J. , Rao, Jayaraman, McKendrick, A. D., Brin, Mitchell F. , Danisi, Fabio , Benabou, Reina, Hubble, Jean, Paulson, George W., Reider, Carson, Birnbaum, Alex, So, Julie , Dubinsky, Richard , Uitti, Ryan J. , Turk, Margaret F., Rottenberg, David A., Hansen, Joy, Ramos, Serrano, Waters, Cheryl , Lew, Mark, Welsh, Mickie, Kawai, Connie, OʼBrien, Christopher , Kumar, Rajeev , Seeberger, Lauren , Judd, Deborah, Mendis, Tilak, Grimes, David A. , Sutherland, Laura, Dawson, Ted M. , Reich, Stephen G. , Frey, Kirk A. , Wernette, K., Marek, Kenneth , Lang, Anthony E. , Goetz, Christopher G. , Jankovic, Joseph, Friedman, Joseph H. , Standaert, David G. , Factor, Stewart Alan , Clark, Jeffrey N. , Martin, W. R. Wayne , Hauser, Robert A. , Perlmutter, Joel S. , Racette, Brad A. , Simuni, Tanya , Saint‐Hilaire, Marie , Miyasaki, Janis M. , Johnston, Lisa , Pahwa, Rajesh , Wszołek, Zbigniew K. , Tuite, Paul , Barclay, Corlane , Dunlop, Rebecca A. , Albin, Roger L.

Neurology | March 30, 2012 | Volume: 78 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 1146-1149

10.1212/wnl.0b013e31824f8056 Get It