Kalidas, Kavita

Abstract Objective To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk. Background Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene‐related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre‐existing CV risk factors. Methods Data pooled from four double‐blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10‐year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no‐risk‐factors, low‐risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate‐risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high‐risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE). Results There was no apparent difference between placebo‐ ( N = 1032) and erenumab‐treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1–3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long‐term analysis. Erenumab‐treated patients with high and moderate 10‐year CV risk ( N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double‐blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low‐risk erenumab group ( N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long‐term extensions of up to 5 years ( N = 2499; 3482 patient‐years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure‐adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient‐years) for no risk factor ( N = 1805), low ( N = 492), moderate ( N = 121), and high ( N = 81) 10‐year CV risk groups, respectively. Conclusions Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10‐year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.

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)

Background Sustained pain freedom is an important attribute of acute migraine therapies for patients and physicians. Here we report efficacy of the centrally penetrant, highly selective, 5-HT 1F agonist lasmiditan on sustained pain freedom and other outcomes at 24 and 48 hours post-dose. Study design and methods Data from the similarly designed, Phase 3, double-blind studies SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174) were pooled to more precisely estimate efficacy effects in these post-hoc analyses. In both studies, inclusion criteria were 3–8 migraine attacks per month and Migraine Disability Assessment Score of ≥ 11 (at least moderate disability). Patients were randomized equally to lasmiditan 200 mg, 100 mg, 50 mg (50 mg only in SPARTAN), or to placebo. The study drug was to be taken within 4 hours of onset of pain for non-improving headache of at least moderate severity. Sustained pain freedom was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and at the given time point (24 or 48 hours) post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. Sustained responses were assessed similarly for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free, and disability-free outcomes. For comparisons with previously published data on other acute medications, an additional endpoint of modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was defined as being pain free at 2 hours and no moderate-to-severe headache at 24 hours post-dose without use of additional study drug or migraine medications. Results Significantly higher proportions of patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo achieved headache pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose: 200 mg: 35.6%; 100 mg: 29.9%; 50 mg: 28.6%; placebo: 18.3% (all p < 0.001). Sustained pain freedom was significantly higher in patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 hours: 200 mg: 21.2%; 100 mg: 16.9%; 50 mg: 17.4%; placebo: 10.3% (all p < 0.01); and at 48 hours: 200 mg: 18.4%; 100 mg: 15.2%; 50 mg: 14.9%; placebo: 9.6% (all p < 0.05). Similar sustained benefits of lasmiditan versus placebo at 24 and 48 hours were noted for most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. Modified sustained pain freedom at 24 hours was also observed in significantly higher proportions of lasmiditan-treated patients versus placebo: 200 mg: 27.0%; 100 mg: 21.7%; 50 mg: 21.7%; placebo: 12.9% (all p < 0.01). Conclusion Sustained responses at 24 and 48 hours were noted in significantly more patients treated with lasmiditan versus placebo for several efficacy outcomes including pain freedom, most bothersome symptom-free, total migraine-free and disability-free responses. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier numbers SAMURAI: NCT02439320; SPARTAN: NCT02605174.

Background It is generally felt that patient education and patient knowledge regarding triptan use for acute migraine management are important for successful and safe treatment. It is unclear how knowledgeable triptan users are regarding their triptan, how much education occurs when triptans are prescribed, and the impact patient education has on actual patient knowledge regarding triptan use. Objective The primary objective was to compare triptan users' self‐perceived knowledge and actual knowledge about triptans in patients who report having received triptan education vs patients who report not having received triptan education. Methods This was a multicenter prospective observational study of 207 migraine patients who were using triptans for abortive therapy and who were being evaluated as new patients at academic headache specialty clinics in the U nited S tates. Patients completed standardized questionnaires regarding their self‐perceived knowledge about triptans, their actual knowledge regarding triptans, and the perceived education about the triptan that they had received at the time of prescription. Results Although greater than 80% of the subjects reported receiving education about when to take the triptan and the number of doses they could take for headache, only 71.5% reported receiving education about triptan side effects, 64% for the number of triptan doses they could take each week/month, 64% for taking other medications with the triptan, and 49% for medical contraindications to triptan use. Compared with subjects who did not recall receiving education about when to take their triptan, subjects who recalled such education had a statistically significant greater actual knowledge for taking the triptan immediately after a headache begins (91% vs 77%, P = .049; confidence interval [ CI ]: 0.00–0.33), treating when pain is mild (75% vs 50%, P = .009; CI : 0.04–0.45), understanding that they do not need to fail treatment with over‐the‐counter medications before taking a triptan (74% vs 42%, P = .001; CI : 0.11–0.51), and recognizing that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use (40% vs 19%, P = .001; CI : 0.09–0.34). Conclusion This study provides evidence that patients who recall having received education at the time of triptan prescribing have greater knowledge regarding optimal triptan use. Triptan users who recalled having received this education had greater recognition of the importance of taking the triptan immediately at the onset of a headache, treating when pain is mild, not needing to fail treatment with over‐the‐counter medications before taking a triptan, and understanding that coronary artery disease is a contraindication to triptan use.

Objective To identify factors associated with triptan discontinuation among migraine patients. Background It is unclear why many migraine patients who are prescribed triptans discontinue this treatment. This study investigated correlates of triptan discontinuation with a focus on potentially modifiable factors to improve compliance. Methods This multicenter cross‐sectional survey (n = 276) was performed at US tertiary care headache clinics. Headache fellows who were members of the American Headache Society Headache Fellows Research Consortium recruited episodic and chronic migraine patients who were current triptan users (use within prior 3 months and for ≥1 year) or past triptan users (no use within 6 months; prior use within 2 years). Univariate analyses were first completed to compare current triptan users to past users for: migraine characteristics, other migraine treatments, triptan education, triptan efficacy, triptan side effects, type of prescribing provider, Migraine Disability Assessment ( MIDAS ) scores and Beck Depression Inventory ( BDI ) scores. Then, a multivariable logistic regression model was selected from all possible combinations of predictor variables to determine the factors that best correlated with triptan discontinuation. Results Compared with those still using triptans (n = 207), those who had discontinued use (n = 69) had higher rates of medication overuse (30 vs 18%, P = .04) and were more likely to have ever used opioids for migraine treatment (57 vs 38%, P = .006) as well as higher MIDAS (mean 63 vs 37, P = .001) and BDI scores (mean 10.4 vs 7.4, P = .009). Compared with discontinued users, current triptan users were more likely to have had their triptan prescribed by a specialist (neurologist, headache specialist, or pain specialist) (74 vs 54%, P = .002) and were more likely to report headache resolution (53 vs 14%, P < .001) or a reduction in pain intensity (71 vs 28%, P < .001) most of the time from their triptan. On a 1‐5 scale (1 = disagree, 5 = agree), triptan users felt they had more: control over their migraine attacks (2.9 vs 2.1), confidence in their prescribing provider (4.5 vs 4.0), and were more educated about triptan use (4.2 vs 3.7) compared with triptan discontinuers ( P < .001 for all comparisons). Although both current and prior users reported similar rates of side effects (48 vs 43%, P = .44), of those who discontinued use, the main reasons were for lack of effect (44%) and side effects (29%). Our multivariable modeling revealed that the strongest correlate of triptan discontinuation was lack of efficacy (odds ratio = 17, 95% confidence interval [8.8, 33.0]). Other factors associated with discontinuation included MIDAS > 24 (2.6, [1.5, 4.6]), BDI >4 (2.5, [1.4, 4.5]), and a history of ever using opioids for migraine therapy (2.2, [1.3, 3.8]). Having a triptan prescribed by a specialist and using at least 1 other abortive medication with the triptan were associated with a decreased likelihood of triptan discontinuation (0.41, [0.2‐0.7] and 0.44 [0.3, 0.8], respectively). Conclusions As expected, discontinuation was most correlated with lack of efficacy, but other important factors associated with those who had discontinued use included greater migraine‐related disability, depression, and the use of opioids for migraine attacks. Compared with patients who had discontinued triptans, current triptan users felt more: educated about their triptan, control over their migraine attacks, and confidence in their prescribing provider. Current triptan users had their triptan prescribed by a specialist and used other abortive medications with their triptan more often compared with patients who had discontinued triptans. Given the cross‐sectional nature of this study, we cannot determine if these factors contributed to triptan discontinuation or reflect the impact of such discontinuation. Interventions that address modifiable risk factors for triptan discontinuation may decrease the likelihood of triptan discontinuation and thus improve overall migraine control. Because lack of efficacy was most strongly associated with triptan discontinuation, future research should determine why triptans are effective for some patients but not others.