Explore the vast range of titles available.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) probably has a role in migraine pathophysiology, and antagonism of its receptors might provide treatment without the vasoconstrictor effects of triptans. We aimed to assess the clinical profile of MK-0974 (telcagepant), an orally bioavailable antagonist of CGRP receptor. In a randomised, parallel-treatment, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial at 81 sites in the Europe and the USA, adults with migraine diagnosed by International Headache Society criteria treated moderate or severe attacks with either oral telcagepant 150 mg or 300 mg, zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo. The five co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, or absence of photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea at 2 h after treatment. Analysis was by the full analysis set and multiplicity was controlled for with a step-down closed-testing procedure. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00442936. 1380 patients were randomly assigned to receive telcagepant 150 mg (n=333) or 300 mg (354), zolmitriptan (345), or placebo (348). Telcagepant 300 mg was more effective than placebo for pain freedom (95 [27%] of 353 patients vs 33 [10%] of 343 [p<0·0001]), pain relief (194 [55%] of 353 vs 95 [28%] of 343 [p<0·0001]), and absences of phonophobia (204 [58%] of 353 vs 126 [37%] of 342 [p<0·0001]), photophobia (180 [51%] of 353 vs 99 [29%] of 342 [p<0·0001]), and nausea (229 [65%] of 352 vs 189 [55%] of 342 [p=0·0061]). Efficacy of telcagepant 300 mg and zolmitriptan 5 mg were much the same, and both were more effective than telcagepant 150 mg. Adverse events were recorded for 31% taking telcagepant 150 mg, 37% taking telcagepant 300 mg, 51% taking zolmitriptan 5 mg, and 32% taking placebo. Telcagepant 300 mg is effective as an acute treatment for migraine with efficacy comparable to that of zolmitriptan 5 mg, but with fewer associated adverse effects. Merck Research Laboratories.

We have developed the Computational Analysis of Novel Drug Opportunities (CANDO) platform to infer homology of drug behaviour at a proteomic level by constructing and analysing structural compound-proteome interaction signatures of 3,733 compounds with 48,278 proteins in a shotgun manner. We applied the CANDO platform to predict putative therapeutic properties of 428 psychoactive compounds that belong to the phenylethylamine, tryptamine, and cannabinoid chemical classes for treating mental health indications. Our findings indicate that these 428 psychoactives are among the top-ranked predictions for a significant fraction of mental health indications, demonstrating a significant preference for treating such indications over non-mental health indications, relative to randomized controls. Also, we analysed the use of specific tryptamines for the treatment of sleeping disorders, bupropion for substance abuse disorders, and cannabinoids for epilepsy. Our innovative use of the CANDO platform may guide the identification and development of novel therapies for mental health indications and provide an understanding of their causal basis on a detailed mechanistic level. These predictions can be used to provide new leads for preclinical drug development for mental health and other neurological disorders.

BackgroundTriptans are the first-line option for the acute treatment of migraine attacks; however, triptans are contraindicated in people with certain underlying cardiovascular risk factors and are associated with inadequate efficacy or poor tolerability in some individuals. Ubrogepant is an oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine.MethodsThis post hoc analysis of the phase 3 ACHIEVE trials examined the impact of ubrogepant on the Functional Disability Scale (FDS), satisfaction with medication, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) in participants who were self-reported triptan insufficient responders (TIRs), defined as those who are unable to take triptans due to contraindications, tolerability issues, or insufficient efficacy. Responder definitions for the FDS, satisfaction measures, and PGIC were based on qualitative interpretation of the respective response options for the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups.ResultsIn the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 451 (25%) participants were TIRs, with most (80%) reporting insufficient efficacy with triptan use. A significantly higher proportion of TIRs treated with ubrogepant vs placebo reported being able to function normally from 2 to 8 h post dose (P < 0.05). Notably, significance was demonstrated at the time of the primary outcome assessments (2 h post dose), where rates of normal function were 38% for ubrogepant vs 29% for placebo (P = 0.048). A greater proportion of TIRs in the ubrogepant arm vs the placebo arm were satisfied with treatment at 2 (33% vs 21%, P = 0.006) and 24 h (58% vs 28%, P < 0.001) and indicated that their migraine improved at 2 h vs placebo (30% vs 18%, P = 0.006). Results were generally similar in the insufficient efficacy subpopulation of TIRs as in the overall TIRs group. Ubrogepant was safe and well tolerated in TIRs, with no new safety signals identified.ConclusionsIn people with migraine who are TIRs, individuals treated with ubrogepant had favorable 2-h outcomes, as measured by the FDS, satisfaction with medication, and PGIC, compared with placebo.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), registered July 11, 2016; NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), registered August 16, 2016.

The trigeminal nerve and its projections to the intracranial vasculature — the trigeminovascular system — are at the nexus of migraine. Identification of the mechanisms that trigger signals in this system have led to targeted treatments and preventive therapies for migraine.

The objective and background is to confirm in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study the high triptan response rates we had previously reported in an open study in migraine patients with unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 80 migraineurs with unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms were assigned to receive rizatriptan 10 mg wafer or placebo (ratio 1:1) and treated for a single moderate or severe migraine attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h and total migraine freedom at 2 h. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, no associated symptoms and sustained pain freedom or relief. Significantly more patients reported pain freedom at 2 h after taking rizatriptan (54 %) than after placebo (8 %) (therapeutic gain 46 % [28 %; 64 %]; P  < 0.001). Similarly, significantly more patients reported total migraine freedom at 2 h after rizatriptan (51 %) than after placebo (8 %) (therapeutic gain 43 % [26 %; 61 %]; P  < 0.001). Rizatriptan was also more effective than placebo on most secondary endpoints. We confirm in a placebo-controlled study our previous data suggesting that the presence of unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms in migraineurs predicts a positive response to triptans, probably owing to intense trigeminal peripheral afferent activation which strongly recruits peripheral neurovascular 5-HT1B/1D receptors. Acute and preventive pharmacological trials in migraine should focus also on this subset of migraine patients.

The objective of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan (F) versus rizatriptan (R), zolmitriptan (Z) and almotriptan (A), in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS criteria) through a pooled analysis of three individual studies. Subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura were randomized to F 2.5 mg or R 10 mg (study 1), F or Z 2.5 mg (study 2), and F or A 12.5 mg (study 3). The studies had an identical multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover design. After treating three episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, patients had to switch to the next treatment for other 3 months. 346 subjects formed intention-to-treat population of the main study; 280 of them were of a female gender, 256 had regular menses and 187 were included in the menstrual migraine subgroup analysis. Rate of pain free at 2, 4 and 24 h was 23, 52 and 67 % with F and 30, 61 and 66 % with comparators ( P  = NS). Pain relief episodes at 2, 4 and 24 h were 37, 60 and 66 % for F and 43, 55 and 61 % for comparators ( P  = NS). Rate of recurrence was significantly ( P  < 0.05) lower under F either at 24 h (11 vs. 24 % comparators) or at 48 h (15 vs. 26 % comparators). Number of menstrual migraine attacks associated with drug-related adverse events was equally low ( P  = NS) between F (5 %) and comparators (4 %).

The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of frovatriptan and almotriptan in women with menstrually related migraine (IHS Classification of Headache disorders) enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study. Patients received frovatriptan 2.5 mg or almotriptan 12.5 mg in a randomized sequence: after treating 3 episodes of migraine in no more than 3 months with the first treatment, the patient was switched to the other treatment. 67 of the 96 female patients of the intention-to-treat population of the main study had regular menstrual cycles and were thus included in this subgroup analysis. 77 migraine attacks classified as related to menses were treated with frovatriptan and 78 with almotriptan. Rate of pain relief at 2 and 4 h was 36 and 53 % for frovatriptan and 41 and 50 % for almotriptan ( p  = NS between treatments). Rate of pain free at 2 and 4 h was 19 and 47 % with frovatriptan and 29 and 54 % for almotriptan ( p  = NS). At 24 h, 62 % of frovatriptan-treated and 67 % of almotriptan-treated patients had pain relief, while 60 versus 67 % were pain free ( p  = NS). Recurrence at 24 h was significantly ( p  < 0.05) lower with frovatriptan (8 vs. 21 % almotriptan). This was the case also at 48 h (9 vs. 24 %, p  < 0.05). Frovatriptan was as effective as almotriptan in the immediate treatment of menstrually related migraine attacks. However, it showed a more favorable sustained effect, as shown by a lower rate of migraine recurrence.

The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction with acute treatment of migraine with frovatriptan or rizatriptan by preference questionnaire. 148 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS 2004 criteria), with at least one migraine attack per month in the preceding 6 months, were enrolled and randomized to frovatriptan 2.5 mg or rizatriptan 10 mg treating 1–3 attacks. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with treatment periods lasting <3 months. At the end of the study, patients assigned preference to one of the treatments using a questionnaire with a score from 0 to 5 (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints were pain-free and pain relief episodes at 2 h, and recurrent and sustained pain-free episodes within 48 h. 104 of the 125 patients (83%, intention-to-treat population) expressed a preference for a triptan. The average preference score was not significantly different between frovatriptan (2.9 ± 1.3) and rizatriptan (3.2 ± 1.1). The rates of pain-free (33% frovatriptan vs. 39% rizatriptan) and pain relief (55 vs. 62%) episodes at 2 h were not significantly different between the two treatments. The rate of recurrent episodes was significantly ( p  < 0.001) lower under frovatriptan (21 vs. 43% rizatriptan). No significant differences were observed in sustained pain-free episodes (26% frovatriptan vs. 22% rizatriptan). The number of patients with adverse events was not significantly different between rizatriptan (34) and frovatriptan (25, p  = NS). The results suggest that frovatriptan has a similar efficacy to rizatriptan, but a more prolonged duration of action.

The objective of this study is to assess patients’ satisfaction with migraine treatment with frovatriptan (F) or zolmitriptan (Z), by preference questionnaire. 133 subjects with a history of migraine with or without aura (IHS criteria) were randomized to F 2.5 mg or Z 2.5 mg. The study had a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over design, with each of the two treatment periods lasting no more than 3 months. At the end of the study, patients were asked to assign preference to one of the treatments (primary endpoint). The number of pain-free (PF) and pain-relief (PR) episodes at 2 h, and number of recurrent and sustained pain-free (SPF) episodes within 48 h were the secondary study endpoints. Seventy-seven percent of patients expressed a preference. Average score of preference was 2.9 ± 1.3 (F) versus 3.0 ± 1.3 (Z; p  = NS). Rate of PF episodes at 2 h was 26% with F and 31% with Z ( p  = NS). PR episodes at 2 h were 57% for F and 58% for Z ( p  = NS). Rate of recurrence was 21 (F) and 24% (Z; p  = NS). Time to recurrence within 48 h was better for F especially between 4 and 16 h ( p  < 0.05). SPF episodes were 18 (F) versus 22% (Z; p  = NS). Drug-related adverse events were significantly ( p  < 0.05) less under F (3 vs. 10). In conclusion, our study suggests that F has a similar efficacy of Z, with some advantage as regards tolerability and recurrence.

Background The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Methods Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine. Results 129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively. Conclusions Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient’s needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs. Trial registration 2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).