Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.
Acute treatments
Efficacy
Gepants
Lasmiditan
Migraine
Network meta-analysis
Rimegepant
Ubrogepant
Journal
The journal of headache and pain
ISSN: 1129-2377
Titre abrégé: J Headache Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100940562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jul 2022
06 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
15
04
2022
accepted:
04
06
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
8
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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). 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35790906
doi: 10.1186/s10194-022-01440-w
pii: 10.1186/s10194-022-01440-w
pmc: PMC9258126
doi:
Substances chimiques
Benzamides
0
Piperidines
0
Pyridines
0
Pyrroles
0
rimegepant sulfate
1383NM3Q0H
lasmiditan
760I9WM792
ubrogepant
AD0O8X2QJR
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
76Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Cephalalgia. 2014 Feb;34(2):114-25
pubmed: 23965396
Neurology. 2018 Dec 11;91(24):e2222-e2232
pubmed: 30446595
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1211-1259
pubmed: 28919117
Headache. 2019 Jan;59(1):1-18
pubmed: 30536394
Am Fam Physician. 2011 Feb 1;83(3):271-80
pubmed: 21302868
N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 5;381(23):2230-2241
pubmed: 31800988
Cephalalgia. 2013 Jul;33(9):629-808
pubmed: 23771276
Neurol Ther. 2020 Dec;9(2):535-549
pubmed: 32542532
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022 Jan;22(1):155-166
pubmed: 34148501
Headache. 2013 Sep;53(8):1300-11
pubmed: 23879870
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020 Nov;26(11):1456-1462
pubmed: 33119447
JAMA. 2019 Nov 19;322(19):1887-1898
pubmed: 31742631
Lancet Neurol. 2012 May;11(5):405-13
pubmed: 22459549
Cephalalgia. 2019 May;39(6):687-710
pubmed: 30806518
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015 Jan;8(1):46-54
pubmed: 25584073
Cephalalgia. 2019 Jul;39(8):957-966
pubmed: 31166697
Cephalalgia. 2016 Aug;36(9):887-98
pubmed: 27269043
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Jun;41(3):818-27
pubmed: 22461129
Am J Manag Care. 2019 Jan;25(2 Suppl):S23-S34
pubmed: 30681821
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Oct 1;4(10):e2128544
pubmed: 34633423
Headache. 2021 May;61(5):755-765
pubmed: 33990951
Cephalalgia. 2021 Apr;41(5):546-560
pubmed: 33241721
Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2019 Jun;28(6):555-567
pubmed: 31081399
Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2010 Jul;11(7):735-9
pubmed: 20597189
Brain. 2019 Jul 1;142(7):1894-1904
pubmed: 31132795
J Headache Pain. 2017 Sep 25;18(1):96
pubmed: 28948500
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 11;381(2):142-149
pubmed: 31291516
Headache. 2002 Jan;42 Suppl 1:3-9
pubmed: 11966858
Lancet. 2019 Aug 31;394(10200):737-745
pubmed: 31311674
Headache. 2004 May;44 Suppl 1:S20-30
pubmed: 15149490
Prog Brain Res. 2020;255:143-170
pubmed: 33008505
Stat Med. 2015 Mar 15;34(6):984-98
pubmed: 25475839
Cephalalgia. 2021 Mar;41(3):294-304
pubmed: 33541117
Lancet Neurol. 2018 Nov;17(11):954-976
pubmed: 30353868
Clin J Pain. 2020 Dec;36(12):950-954
pubmed: 32841968
Adv Ther. 2020 Dec;37(12):4765-4796
pubmed: 32990921
Neurology. 2009 May 26;72(21):1864-71
pubmed: 19470970
Headache. 2009 Jul;49(7):971-82
pubmed: 19486178
Headache. 2021 Jul;61(7):1021-1039
pubmed: 34160823