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

David W Dodick, Richard B Lipton, Jessica Ailani, Rashmi B Halker Singh, Anand R Shewale, Sihui Zhao, Joel M Trugman, Sung Yun Yu, Hema N Viswanathan, David W Dodick, Richard B Lipton, Jessica Ailani, Rashmi B Halker Singh, Anand R Shewale, Sihui Zhao, Joel M Trugman, Sung Yun Yu, Hema N Viswanathan

Abstract

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.

Keywords: calcitonin gene-related peptide; functional disability; headache; migraine; patient-reported outcomes; quality of life.

© 2020 The Authors. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Headache Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participant disposition. aThe mITT population used for efficacy analyses included all randomized participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication, recorded baseline migraine headache severity, and reported at least one post dose migraine headache severity rating or migraine‐associated symptom outcome at or before 2 hours after the initial dose. mITT = modified intention‐to‐treat. [Color figure can be viewed at https://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportion of participants reporting ability to function normally on the Functional Disability Scale in (a) ACHIEVE I, (b) ACHIEVE II, and (c) the pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and II. *P ≤ .01. P values are based on logistic regression with treatment group, baseline severity, historical triptan response, and use of medication for migraine prevention as factors and baseline value as a covariate. Missing values post baseline were imputed using the last observation carried forward approach. [Color figure can be viewed at https://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportion of participants “satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with study medication at 2 and 24 hours after initial dose in (a) ACHIEVE I, (b) ACHIEVE II, and (c) the pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and II. *P < .002. P values are based on logistic regression with treatment group, baseline severity, historical triptan response, and use of medication for migraine prevention as factors. [Color figure can be viewed at https://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 4
Figure 4
Proportion of participants reporting that their migraine was “much better” or “very much better” on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at 2 hours after initial dose in (a) ACHIEVE I, (b) ACHIEVE II, and (c) the pooled analysis of ACHIEVE I and II. *P ≤ .0009. P values are based on logistic regression, with treatment group, baseline severity, historical triptan response, and use of medication for migraine prevention as factors. [Color figure can be viewed at https://wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology. 2007;68:343‐349.
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society . The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38:1‐211.
    1. Brandes JL. Global trends in migraine care: Results from the MAZE survey. CNS Drugs. 2002;16(Suppl. 1):13‐18.
    1. Lanteri‐Minet M, Duru G, Mudge M, Cottrell S. Quality of life impairment, disability and economic burden associated with chronic daily headache, focusing on chronic migraine with or without medication overuse: A systematic review. Cephalalgia. 2011;31:837‐850.
    1. Bussone G, Usai S, Grazzi L, Rigamonti A, Solari A, D'Amico D. Disability and quality of life in different primary headaches: Results from Italian studies. Neurol Sci. 2004;25(Suppl. 3):S105‐S107.
    1. Blumenfeld AM, Varon SF, Wilcox TK, et al. Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: Results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Cephalalgia. 2011;31:301‐315.
    1. Leonardi M, Raggi A, Bussone G, D'Amico D. Health‐related quality of life, disability and severity of disease in patients with migraine attending to a specialty headache center. Headache. 2010;50:1576‐1586.
    1. Freitag FG. The cycle of migraine: Patients' quality of life during and between migraine attacks. Clin Ther. 2007;29:939‐949.
    1. Serrano D, Manack AN, Reed ML, Buse DC, Varon SF, Lipton RB. Cost and predictors of lost productive time in chronic migraine and episodic migraine: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Value Health. 2013;16:31‐38.
    1. Hawkins K, Wang S, Rupnow M. Direct cost burden among insured US employees with migraine. Headache. 2008;48:553‐563.
    1. D'Amico D, Grazzi L, Curone M, et al. Difficulties in work activities and the pervasive effect over disability in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. Neurol Sci. 2015;36(Suppl. 1):9‐11.
    1. Raggi A, Giovannetti AM, Quintas R, et al. A systematic review of the psychosocial difficulties relevant to patients with migraine. J Headache Pain. 2012;13:595‐606.
    1. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators . Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990‐2016: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390:1211‐1259.
    1. Lipton RB, Buse DC, Serrano D, Holland S, Reed ML. Examination of unmet treatment needs among persons with episodic migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study. Headache. 2013;53:1300‐1311.
    1. Lipton RB, Munjal S, Buse DC, et al. Unmet acute treatment needs from the 2017 Migraine in America Symptoms and Treatment Study. Headache. 2019;59:1310‐1323.
    1. Lipton RB, Hutchinson S, Ailani J, Reed ML, Fanning KM. Patterns and characterization of acute prescription headache medication use: Results from the CaMEO study [poster] Presented at: Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Headache Society; June 28‐July 1, 2018; San Francisco, CA.
    1. Lipton RB, Reed ML, Kurth T, Fanning KM, Buse DC. Framingham‐based cardiovascular risk estimates among people with episodic migraine in the US population: Results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study. Headache. 2017;57:1507‐1521.
    1. Marmura MJ, Silberstein SD, Schwedt TJ. The acute treatment of migraine in adults: The American Headache Society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies. Headache. 2015;55:3‐20.
    1. Goadsby PJ, Holland PR, Martins‐Oliveira M, Hoffmann J, Schankin C, Akerman S. Pathophysiology of migraine: A disorder of sensory processing. Physiol Rev. 2017;97:553‐622.
    1. Edvinsson L, Warfvinge K. Recognizing the role of CGRP and CGRP receptors in migraine and its treatment. Cephalalgia. 2019;39:366‐373.
    1. Charles A, Pozo‐Rosich P. Targeting calcitonin gene‐related peptide: A new era in migraine therapy. Lancet. 2019;394:1765‐1774.
    1. Ubrelvy [package insert]. Madison, NJ: Allergan USA, Inc.; 2019.
    1. Dodick DW, Lipton RB, Ailani J, et al. Ubrogepant for the treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2230‐2241.
    1. Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, et al. Effect of ubrogepant versus placebo on pain and the most bothersome associated symptom in the acute treatment of migraine: The ACHIEVE II randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322:1887‐1898.
    1. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society . The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia. 2013;33:629‐808.
    1. Cady RK, McAllister PJ, Spierings EL, et al. A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of breath powered nasal delivery of sumatriptan powder (AVP‐825) in the treatment of acute migraine (The TARGET Study). Headache. 2015;55:88‐100.
    1. Silberstein SD. Practice parameter: Evidence‐based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence‐based review): Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2000;55:754‐762.
    1. Matchar DB, Young WB, Rosenberg JH, et al. Evidence‐based guidelines for migraine headache in the primary care setting: Pharmacological management of acute attacks. Am Acad Neurol. 2000. Available at: . Accessed March 20, 2015.
    1. American Headache Society . The American Headache Society position statement on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 2019;59:1‐18.
    1. Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Ailani J, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Results from a single attack phase III study, ACHIEVE II [abstract PS111LB]. Headache. 2018;58:1315‐1316.
    1. Williams GS. Triptan use and discontinuation: Results from the MAST study. Neurol Rev. 2018;26:30.
    1. Bigal M, Rapoport A, Aurora S, Sheftell F, Tepper S, Dahlof C. Satisfaction with current migraine therapy: Experience from 3 centers in US and Sweden. Headache. 2007;47:475‐479.
    1. Colman SS, Brod MI, Krishnamurthy A, Rowland CR, Jirgens KJ, Gomez‐Mancilla B. Treatment satisfaction, functional status, and health‐related quality of life of migraine patients treated with almotriptan or sumatriptan. Clin Ther. 2001;23:127‐145.
    1. Landy SH, Cady RK, Nelsen A, White J, Runken MC. Consistency of return to normal function, productivity, and satisfaction following migraine attacks treated with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination. Headache. 2014;54:640‐654.
    1. Lainez MJ, Galvan J, Heras J, Vila C. Crossover, double‐blind clinical trial comparing almotriptan and ergotamine plus caffeine for acute migraine therapy. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14:269‐275.
    1. Cady RK, Munjal S, Cady RJ, Manley HR, Brand‐Schieber E. Randomized, double‐blind, crossover study comparing DFN‐11 injection (3 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan) with 6 mg subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of rapidly‐escalating attacks of episodic migraine. J Headache Pain. 2017;18:17.
    1. Tfelt‐Hansen P, Block G, Dahlof C, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: Second edition. Cephalalgia. 2000;20:765‐786.

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj