Comparative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine: a network meta-analysis

References

• American Headache Society. AHS consensus statement: the American headache society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 2019;59:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buse D, Fanning K, Reed M, et al. Life with migraine: effects on relationships, career, and finances from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study. Headache. 2019;59(8):1286–1299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messali A, Sanderson J, Blumenfeld A, et al. Direct and indirect costs of chronic and episodic migraine in the United States: a web-based survey. Headache. 2016;56(2):306–322.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raval A, Shah A. National trends in direct health care expenditures among US adults with migraine: 2004 to 2013. J Pain. 2017;18(1):96–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford J, Ye W, Nichols R, et al. Treatment patterns and predictors of costs among patients with migraine: evidence from the United States medical expenditure panel survey. J Med Econ. 2017;22(9):849–858.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumefeld A, Varon S, Wilcox T, et al. Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Cephalalgia. 2011;31(3):301–315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonafede M, Sapra S, Shah N, et al. Direct and Indirect healthcare resource utilization and costs among migraine patients in the United States. Headache. 2018;58(5):700–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buse D, Rupnow M, Lipton R. Assessing and managing all aspects of migraine: migraine attacks, migraine-related functional impairment, common comorbidities, and quality of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(5):422–435.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombard L, Farrar M, Ye W, et al. A global real-world assessment of the impact on health-related quality of life and work productivity of migraine in patients with insufficient versus good esponse to triptan medication. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmura M, Silberstein S, Schwedt T. The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies. Headache. 2015;55(1):3–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silberstein S, Holland S, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults. Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78(17):1337–1345.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayans L, Walling A. Acute migraine headache: treatment strategies. Am Fam Physician. 2018;97(4):243–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters G. Migraine overview and summary of current and merging treatment options. Am J Manag Care. 2019;25(2 Suppl):S23–S34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eli Lilly and Company. REYVOW (lasmiditan) tablets Prescribing Information. Indianapolis, IN.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2019. (Ed.^(Eds).
   Google Scholar
• Allergan USA. UBRELVY (ubrogepant) tablets Prescribing Information. Madison, NJ.: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2019. (Ed.^(Eds).
   Google Scholar
• Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. NURTEC ODT (rimegepant) orally disintegrating tablets Prescribing Information. New Haven, CT: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; (Ed.^(Eds), 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Clemow DB, Johnson KW, Hochstetler HM, et al. Lasmiditan mechanism of action - review of a selective 5-HT(1F) agonist. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1): 71–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curto M, Capi M, Cipolla F, et al. Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2020;21(7):755–759.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curto M, Cipolla F, Cisale GY, et al. Profiling lasmiditan as a treatment option for migraine. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2020;21(2):147–153.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Matteis E, Guglielmetti M, Ornello R, et al. Targeting CGRP for migraine treatment: mechanisms, antibodies, small molecules, perspectives. Expert Rev Neurother. 2020;20(6):627–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Do TP, Guo S, Ashina M. Therapeutic novelties in migraine: new drugs, new hope? J Headache Pain. 2019;20(1):37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Edvinsson L, Haanes K, Warfvinge K, et al. CGRP as the target of new migraine therapies - successful translation from bench to clinic. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(6):338–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tepper D. Gepants. Headache. 2020;60(5):1037–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou M, Xing H, Li C, et al. Short-term efficacy and safety of lasmiditan, a novel 5-HT(1F) receptor agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipton R, Lombard L, Ruff D, et al. Trajectory of migraine-related disability following long-term treatment with lasmiditan: results of the GLADIATOR study. J Headache Pain. 2020;21(1):20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reuter U, Israel H, Neeb L. The pharmacological profile and clinical prospects of the oral 5-HT1F receptor agonist lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine. Ther Adv Neurol Disord. 2015;8(1):46–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. BHV3000-303: phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled, Safety and Efficacy Trial of BHV-3000 (Rimegepant) Orally Disintegrating Tablet (ODT) for the Acute Treatment of Migraine. NCT03461757. (Ed.^(Eds) (2020)
   Google Scholar
• Croop R, Goadsby P, Stock D, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10200):737–745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability Study of Oral Ubrogepant in the Acute Treatment of Migraine (ACHIEVE I). NCT02828020. (Ed.^(Eds) (2019)
   Google Scholar
• Dodick D, Lipton R, Ailani J, et al. Ubrogepant for the Treatment of Migraine. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(23):2230–2241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Oral Ubrogepant in the Acute Treatment of Migraine (ACHIEVE II). NCT02867709. (Ed.^(Eds) (2019)
   Google Scholar
• Lipton R, Dodick D, Ailani J, et al. Effect of ubrogepant vs placebo on pain and the most bothersome associated symptom in the acute treatment of migraine the ACHIEVE II randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(19):1887–1898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Lasmiditan compared to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine: (SAMURAI). NCT02439320. (Ed.^(Eds) (2019)
   Google Scholar
• Kuca B, Silberstein S, Wietecha L, et al. Lasmiditan is an effective acute treatment for migraine: a phase 3 randomized study. Neurology. 2018;91(24):e2222–e2232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ClinicalTrials.gov. Three doses of Lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg) compared to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine (SPARTAN). NCT02605174. (Ed.^(Eds) (2019)
   Google Scholar
• Goadsby P, Wietecha L, Dennehy E, et al. Phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. Brain. 2019;142(7):1894–1904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atlas S, Touchette D, Agboola F, et al. Acute Treatments for Migraine: effectiveness and Value. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, February. (Ed.^(Eds) (2020)
   Google Scholar
• Hoaglin D, Hawkins N, Jansen J, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and Network-Meta-Analysis studies: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 2. Value Health. 2011;14(4):429–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339(jul21 1):b2535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Altman D, Gotzche P, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(oct18 2):d5928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias S, Welton N, Sutton A, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Unit, DS (Ed.^(Eds) (2011)
   Google Scholar
• Mbuagbaw L, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, et al. Approaches to interpreting and choosing the best treatments in network meta-analyses. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croop R, Berman G, Kudrow D, et al. Long-Term safety of rimegepant 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine (Study 201) (4829). Neurology. 2020;94 (15 Supplement).
   Google Scholar
• Ailani J, Lipton R, Hutchinson S, et al. Long-Term safety evaluation of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: phase 3, randomized, 52-week extension trial. Headache. 2020;60(1):141–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jansen J, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and Network Meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 1. Value Health. 2011;14(4):417–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar