Post-marketing safety concerns with rimegepant based on a pharmacovigilance study

Jia-Ling Hu,Jing-Ying Wu,Shan Xu,Shi-Yan Qian,Cheng Jiang,Guo-Qing Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01858-4

2024-10-08

The Journal of Headache and Pain

Abstract:This study aimed to comprehensively assess the safety of rimegepant administration in real-world clinical settings.

neurosciences,clinical neurology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

A real-world adverse events study of rimegepant from the FAERS database

Hong Pan,Shasha Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2024.2418319

2024-10-23

Abstract:Background: The primary objective of this research is to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of rimegepant with the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) repository. Research design and methods: This study downloaded the reporting files related to rimegepant from the second quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2024. Disproportionality analysis was utilized to explore the relationship between rimegepant and adverse drug events (ADEs). Results: This study analyzed 6659 ADE reports associated with rimegepant as the primary suspected (PS) drug. In the disproportionate analysis of system organ classes (SOCs), the significant signal for rimegepant was general disorders and administration site conditions.On the preferred terms level, 35 ADEs were identified following the exclusion. The top five ADEs with high signal strengths were medication overuse headache, nasal edema, tension headache, performance status decreased, and motion sickness. The most frequent ADEs were nausea, feeling abnormal, abdominal pain upper, somnolence, and hypersensitivity. In addition, we need to pay attention to the ADEs not mentioned in the instruction and clinically significant: vertigo, hyperacusis, somnolence, Raynaud's phenomenon, motion sickness, panic attack, and fear. Conclusions: This study highlights previously unrecognized safety concerns associated with the use of rimegepant. These novel safety aspects suggest that while these treatments can be effective, additional risks may need further exploration.
First real-world study on the effectiveness and tolerability of rimegepant for acute migraine therapy in Chinese patients

Zhao Yang,Xiaodan Wang,Mengyue Niu,Qiao Wei,Huizhu Zhong,Xiaoyan Li,Weihong Yuan,Wenli Xu,Shuo Zhu,Shengyuan Yu,Jun Liu,Jianzhou Yan,Wenyan Kang,Peijian Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01873-5

2024-09-27

Abstract:Background: Rimegepant, a small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is indicated for acute and preventive migraine treatment in the United States and other countries. However, there is a lack of prospective real-world evidence for the use of rimegepant in Chinese migraine patients. Methods: This was a single-arm, prospective, real-world study. While taking rimegepant to treat migraine attacks as needed, eligible participants were asked to record their pain intensity, functional ability, and accompanying symptoms for a single attack at predose and 0.5, 1, 2, 24, and 48 h postdose via a digital platform. Adverse events (AEs) during the rimegepant treatment period were recorded and analysed. The percentages of participants who experienced moderate to severe pain at predose and 0.5, 1, 2, 24, and 48 h postdose were assessed. Additionally, the percentages of participants who reported better/good outcomes in terms of pain intensity, functional ability, and accompanying symptoms at 0.5, 1, 2, 24, and 48 h postdose were analysed. In addition, the total cohort (full population, FP) was stratified into a prior nonresponder (PNR) group to observe the effectiveness and safety of rimegepant for relatively refractory migraine and a rimegepant and eptinezumab (RE) group to observe the effectiveness and safety of the combination of these drugs. Results: By November 24th, 2023, 133 participants (FP, n = 133; PNR group, n = 40; RE group, n = 28) were enrolled, and 99 participants (FP, n = 99; PNR group, n = 30; RE group, n = 23) were included in the analysis. Rimegepant was effective in treating migraine in the FP and both subgroups, with a significant decreasing trend in the percentages of participants experiencing moderate to severe pain postdose (p < 0.05) and a marked increase in the percentages of participants who reported better/good outcomes in terms of pain intensity, functional ability, and accompanying symptoms at 0.5, 1, 2, 24, and 48 h postdose compared with predose. AEs were reported by 6% of participants in the FP, and all AEs were mild. Conclusions: In the real world, rimegepant is effective in the acute treatment of migraine patients in China. The low incidence rate of AEs highlighted the favourable tolerability profile of rimegepant. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05709106. Retrospectively registered on 2023-02-01.
A multicenter, open-label long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine

Robert Croop,Gary Berman,David Kudrow,Kathleen Mullin,Alexandra Thiry,Meghan Lovegren,Gilbert L’Italien,Richard B Lipton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024241232944

2024-04-27

Cephalalgia

Abstract:Cephalalgia, Volume 44, Issue 4, April 2024. BackgroundThe present study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of rimegepant, an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, in people with migraine.MethodsThis multicenter, long-term, open-label safety study included adults (≥18 years) with ≥1 year history of migraine who were sequentially enrolled into three groups: participants in the first two groups had either 2–8 or 9–14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and treated as needed (pro re nata [PRN]) with one rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet up to once per calendar day for 52 weeks (PRN 2–8 and PRN 9–14); a third group, included to collect safety data during higher-frequency dosing, had 4–14 moderate to severe migraine attacks per month by history and who took one rimegepant tablet every other day as scheduled dosing plus PRN dosing of one rimegepant tablet for migraine attacks of any severity on nonscheduled dosing days for 12 weeks (every other day (EOD) + PRN).ResultsOverall, 1800 participants self-administered rimegepant (PRN 2–8: n = 1033; PRN 9–14: n = 481; EOD + PRN: n = 286). The most common on-treatment adverse events (AEs) were upper respiratory tract infection (8.8%), nasopharyngitis (6.8%) and sinusitis (5.1%). Most AEs were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to rimegepant. Serious AEs considered possibly (n = 1) or unlikely (n = 9) related to rimegepant were reported in ten (0.6%) participants. No signal of drug-induced liver injury because of rimegepant was identified.ConclusionsRimegepant 75 mg up to once per day as EOD + PRN for 12 weeks or PRN for up to 52 weeks was safe and well tolerated. No signal of hepatotoxicity, potential drug abuse, or medication-overuse headache was identified.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine in adults from China: a subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial

Shengyuan Yu,Aihong Guo,Zhen Wang,Jianguang Liu,Ge Tan,Qian Yang,Mingjie Zhang,Hasiyeti Yibulaiyin,Huisheng Chen,Yongbo Zhang,Robert Croop,Yanhui Sun,Yu Liu,Qian Zhao,Zhihong Lu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01731-4

2024-04-17

The Journal of Headache and Pain

Abstract:Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet (ODT), an oral small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is indicated for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in the United States and other countries. Previously, a large clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China or South Korea. A post hoc subgroup analysis of this trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Real-world study of adverse events associated with gepant use in migraine treatment based on the VigiAccess and U.S. Food and Drug Administration's adverse event reporting system databases

Qiaofang Liang,Xiaolin Liao,Hongwen Wu,Yushen Huang,Taolin Liang,Hailong Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1431562

2024-07-31

Abstract:Background: This study aimed to investigate the real-world profile of adverse events (AEs) associated with gepant medications in the clinical treatment of migraines by analyzing data collected from the VigiAccess database and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. As novel migraine therapies, gepants act by targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway, demonstrating effective control of migraine attacks and good tolerability. Nonetheless, comprehensive real-world studies on the safety of gepants are still lacking, particularly regarding their safety in large populations, long-term use, and potential adverse reactions in specific groups, which necessitates further empirical research. Leveraging these two international adverse event reporting system databases, we systematically gathered and analyzed reports of AEs related to gepant medications, such as rimegepant. Our focus encompasses but is not limited to severe, new, and rare adverse reactions induced by the drugs, as well as safety issues pertaining to the gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hepatic, and renal systems. Through descriptive statistical analyses, we assessed the incidence and characteristics of AEs, compared AEs among gepants, and uncovered previously unknown AE information, all with the goal of providing a reference for the selection of clinical treatment regimens and AE monitoring. Methods: By extracting all AE reports concerning "rimegepant", "atogepant", and "ubrogepant" from the VigiAccess and FAERS database since its establishment up to 31 March 2024, a retrospective quantitative analysis was conducted. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) method were used to compare AEs among the three gepants. Results: In the VigiAccess and FAERS databases, 23542 AE reports in total, respectively, were identified as being related to gepant medications. Among gastrointestinal system AEs, rimegepant had the greatest proportion and greatest signal strength; nausea was most severe and had the strongest signal in rimegepant AEs, whereas constipation was most prominent and had the strongest signal in atogepant AEs. In skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, rash and pruritus were more frequently observed with rimegepant, followed by ubrogepant. Alopecia emerged as a novel AE, being more severe in rimegepant and secondarily in atogepant. Regarding cardiac disorders, the three gepants showed comparable rates of cardiac AEs, yet rimegepant exhibited the strongest AE signal. In musculoskeletal and connective tissue AEs, ubrogepant presented the most positive signals for skeletal muscle AEs. Furthermore, among the rare blood and lymphatic system disorder AEs, rimegepant had the highest number of reports of Raynaud's phenomenon and the strongest signal. The study also revealed that while reports of AEs involving liver diseases were scarce across the three gepants, severe AEs were detected in clinical trials, highlighting the need for continued, enhanced monitoring of liver system AEs through large-scale datasets. Conclusion: Gepant medications exhibit similarities and differences in their safety profiles. Analysis of the two databases indicated the presence of AEs across various systems, including gastrointestinal disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue diseases, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, organ-specific effects, and liver diseases. However, each drug displays distinct incidences and signal intensities for these AEs. Additionally, the study revealed a rare AE in the form of Raynaud's phenomenon. These findings suggest that during clinical use, individualized medication selection and AE monitoring should be based on the patient's physiological condition and specific characteristics.
No clinically relevant electrocardiogram effects in a randomized TQT study of single therapeutic/supratherapeutic rimegepant doses in healthy adults

Rajinder Bhardwaj,Michael S. Hanna,Beth A. Morris,Kyle T. Matschke,Richard Bertz,Robert S. Croop,Jing Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.13727

2024-03-07

Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:A single‐center, phase I, partially double‐blind (double‐blind regarding doses of rimegepant and placebo, and open label with respect to moxifloxacin), randomized, 12‐sequence, four‐period crossover study of therapeutic (75 mg) and supratherapeutic (300 mg) doses of rimegepant with placebo and moxifloxacin (400 mg) controls was designed to evaluate drug effect on the Fridericia corrected QT (QTcF) interval in healthy fasted adults. A total of 38 participants were randomized and dosed in the study. Electrocardiogram (ECG) data were available from 37 participants in the rimegepant 75‐mg group, 38 participants in the rimegepant 300‐mg group, and 36 participants in the moxifloxacin and placebo groups. Both the 75‐ and 300‐mg doses of rimegepant had no clinically relevant effect on ECG parameters, including QTcF, heart rate, PR and QRS interval, T‐wave morphology, and U‐wave presence. All upper 90% confidence intervals for the QTcF effect with rimegepant were less than or equal to 4.69 ms, well below the 10‐ms threshold for potential clinical significance. Assay sensitivity was demonstrated by the QT effect of moxifloxacin. Using both by‐timepoint and concentration‐QTc analysis, a placebo‐corrected change‐from‐baseline QTcF greater than 10 ms could be excluded for rimegepant plasma concentrations up to ~10,000 ng/mL, representing concentrations at least 10.8‐fold the maximum observed concentration of the 75‐mg therapeutic dose of rimegepant.

medicine, research & experimental
Characterization of rimegepant drug-drug interactions using the cytochrome P450 probe drugs, itraconazole, rifampin, fluconazole, and midazolam

Rajinder Bhardwaj,Beth Morris,Kyle T Matschke,Richard Bertz,Robert Croop,Jing Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14836

2024-10-04

Abstract:Objective: Reported here are the results of four rimegepant phase I studies, in healthy participants, aimed at determining the in vivo potential of rimegepant (75 mg) for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-related drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Background: Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet (Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA) is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for acute treatment of migraine and preventive treatment of episodic migraine. People with migraine commonly use multiple drug treatments, with the potential for DDIs. Methods: Each study was an open-label, single-arm, single-sequence, crossover study. Rimegepant was tested as a victim drug by separate co-administration of itraconazole (a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor and P-glycoprotein inhibitor) in Study 1, rifampin (a strong CYP3A4 inducer and moderate CYP2C9 inducer) in Study 2, and fluconazole (a strong CYP2C9 inhibitor and moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor) in Study 3, and as a perpetrator drug by co-administration with midazolam (a CYP3A4 substrate) in Study 4. Results: Mean values of single-dose rimegepant maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) increased with itraconazole co-administration (n = 22) by 1.42-fold (90% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-1.61) and by 4.14-fold (90% CI 3.87-4.44), respectively, and decreased with rifampin co-administration (n = 21) to 36% (90% CI 31.2-41.4%) and to 19% (90% CI 16.3-21.4%), respectively. Co-administration with fluconazole (n = 23) increased rimegepant mean AUC0-inf by 1.80-fold (90% CI 1.68-1.93), with no impact on Cmax (1.04-fold; 90% CI 0.94-1.15). Co-administration of rimegepant single dose (300 mg; n = 14) or multiple doses (150 mg/day; n = 14) increased the mean Cmax of midazolam by 1.38-fold (90% CI 1.13-1.67) and 1.53-fold (90% CI 1.32-1.78), respectively, and the AUC0-inf of midazolam by 1.86-fold (90% CI 1.58-2.19) and 1.91-fold (90% CI 1.63-2.25), respectively. Conclusions: Based on the magnitude of DDIs, these studies indicate the following: co-administration of rimegepant with a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor should be avoided; during co-administration with a moderate CYP3A4 inhibitor, another dose of rimegepant within 48 h should be avoided; co-administration of rimegepant with a strong or moderate CYP3A4 inducer should be avoided; CYP2C9 does not play a meaningful role in rimegepant metabolism; and there is no clinically meaningful CYP3A4 inhibition by rimegepant.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of rimegepant for on-demand acute treatment of migraine in China

Shuo Tian,Yuping Yang,Shenglan Tan,Jiani Luo,Chuanyu Yang,Qiao Liu,Yujin Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2024.1411576

2024-08-23

Abstract:Purpose: This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of rimegepant for the on-demand acute treatment of migraine in the Chinese population, focusing on headache relief within a 2 h timeframe. Utilizing data from Phase III clinical trials on rimegepant involving Asian populations, this analysis aims to provide essential insights for healthcare decision-making in the context of migraine management in China. Patients and methods: Employing a decision tree model, this research evaluates the cost-effectiveness of rimegepant over a concise 2 h period, exclusively considering its direct market price of 219.00 CNY per dose for on-demand, single-use treatment upon approval in China. This model is based on pain relief outcomes from a clinical trial, categorizing health outcomes by the achievement of pain freedom and alleviation from the most bothersome symptom within two hours post-administration. Results: The study unveils that rimegepant adds 0.0018 quality-adjusted life days (QALD) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 122,166.07 CNY/QALD. Against a daily cost-effectiveness threshold derived from the 2023 per capita GDP of China (734.45 CNY/day), rimegepant falls short of proving its cost-effectiveness. A significant price reduction to approximately 1.32 CNY per dose is required for rimegepant to be considered cost-effective within this framework. Furthermore, a series of sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the robustness of these results. Conclusion: While rimegepant shows clinical efficacy in providing rapid relief from migraine symptoms, its current pricing exceeds the threshold for cost-effectiveness in the Chinese healthcare setting. This study underscores the need for price adjustments to enhance the accessibility and economic viability of new migraine treatments.
Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305)

Lauren C Powell,Gilbert L'Italien,Evan Popoff,Karissa Johnston,Fiona O'Sullivan,Linda Harris,Robert Croop,Vladimir Coric,Richard B Lipton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02369-x

Abstract:Introduction: The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities. Results: Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks. Conclusion: Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time. Trial registration: NCT03732638.
Bioequivalence of rimegepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, administered as an oral tablet, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, and a supralingual orally disintegrating tablet: two phase 1 randomized studies in healthy adults

Robert Croop,Rajinder Bhardwaj,Matt S Anderson,Kyle T Matschke,Jennifer Hould,Richard Bertz,Jing Liu,Richard B Lipton,Matt S. Anderson,Kyle T. Matschke,Richard B. Lipton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024231219505

2024-02-18

Cephalalgia

Abstract:Cephalalgia, Volume 44, Issue 2, February 2024. BackgroundRimegepant is an orally administered small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine.MethodsTwo single-center, phase 1, open-label, randomized bioequivalence studies were conducted in healthy adult non-smokers, aged 18–55 years. One study compared the rate and extent of absorption of the marketed formulation of rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) administered sublingually with rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet, an earlier development formulation; the second compared the rate and extent of absorption of 75 mg rimegepant ODT administered supralingually with rimegepant oral tablet.ResultsThe ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the area under the curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last available concentration time point (time t) (AUC0-t), AUC from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf), and maximum observed concentration (Cmax) of sublingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 97, 97, and 105%, respectively, and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were all within the predefined range (80–125%) for bioequivalence. The ln-transformed geometric mean ratios for the AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of supralingual rimegepant ODT vs. rimegepant tablet were 98%, the 90% CIs were within the predefined range (80–125%), and the geometric mean ratio for Cmax was 103% with the 95% upper confidence bound for the scaled average bioequivalence criterion of –0.0575 (within-participant coefficient of variation for the reference for Cmax > 30%) for bioequivalence.ConclusionsRimegepant 75 mg ODT, administered sublingually or supralingually, and rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet were bioequivalent.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Corrigendum to “the Efficacy and Safety of Ropinirole Prolonged Release Tablets As Adjunctive Therapy in Chinese Subjects with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study” [parkinsonism and Related Disorders 19 (2013) 1022–1026]

Zhenxin Zhang,Jian Wang,Xiaoying Zhang,Shengdi Chen,Zhenfu Wang,Baorong Zhang,Chun‐Feng Liu,Qing Qu,Yan Cheng,Jie Li,Haijun Cao,Meiling Cai,Rongxuan Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2014.03.025

2014-01-01

Abstract:The authors regret that errors have been found in Tables 1 and 2 and its corresponding paragraph within the text. The correct information is shown below, and the authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. 3.2. Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes Hours of total awake time spent “off” were significantly decreased in the ropinirole PR group compared with placebo group (Table 2; Supplemental Figure 1). Hours of “on” time, “on” time without troublesome dyskinesia, were significantly increased, whereas the percent “off” time were significantly decreased for ropinirole PR compared with placebo (Table 2). For primary efficacy variables, similar results were observed for the PP population.Table 1Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of subjects with Parkinson's disease (Safety population).aUnless noted otherwise, values are expressed as mean SD; PD: Parkinson's disease.Number of subjectsRopinirole PR (n = 175)Placebo (n = 170)Total (n = 345)Age (years)64.1 (9.0)63.6 (10.5)63.9 (9.7)Female, n (%)59 (33.7)65 (38.2)124 (35.9)Height (cm); mean [range]165.4 [145.0–183.0]165.1 [143.0–187.0]165.2 [143.0–187.0]Weight (kg); mean [range]63.9 [43.5–94.0]63.1 [40.0–97.0]63.5 [40.0–97.0]Duration of PD, months92.1 (59.9)95.7 (48.3)93.9 (54.4)Duration of L-dopa, months68.8 (49.2)69.7 (41.7)69.2 (45.6)L-dopa dose (mg/day)506.6 (290.9)539.8 (426.2)522.9 (363.6)Subjects with any concomitant medicines except for L-dopa during treatment period, n (%)153 (87.4)157 (92.4)31 (89.9)Amantadine hydrochloride71 (40.6)68 (40.0)139 (40.3)Selegiline hydrochloride31 (17.7)34 (20.0)65 (18.8)Trihexyphenidyl hydrochloride38 (21.7)24 (14.1)62 (18.0)Entacapone26 (14.9)27 (15.9)53 (15.4)a Unless noted otherwise, values are expressed as mean SD; PD: Parkinson's disease. Open table in a new tab Table 2Mean (SD) change from baseline in awake time spent “off”, awake time spent “on” and total awake time spent “on” without troublesome dyskinesia, UPDRS motor and ADL scores, HAMD-17 and PDSS scales and PDQ-39 domain scores at week 24 last observation carried forward (intention-to-treat population).BaselineWeek 24Change from BaselineAdjusted treatment difference 95% CIp-ValueRopinirole PR (N = 175)Placebo (N = 169)Ropinirole PR (N = 175)Placebo (N = 169)Ropinirole PR (N = 175)Placebo (N = 169)Total awake time spent ‘off’aA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement (h)7.0 (2.89)7.0 (2.90)4.9 (3.05)6.6 (3.25)−2.1 (2.58)−0.4 (2.47)−1.76 (−2.27, −1.26)<0.001Percent awake time spent ‘off’’aA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement45.4 (17.19)45.6 (17.03)31.9 (19.44)43.9 (20.17)−13.5 (15.62)−1.8 (15.88)−11.92 (−15.14, −8.70)<0.001Total awake time spent ‘on’bAn increase from baseline indicates an improvement. (h)8.4 (2.79)8.3 (2.71)10.4 (2.99)8.4 (3.05)1.9 (2.44)0.1 (2.48)1.90 (1.40, 2.40)<0.001Total awake time spent ‘on’ without troublesome dyskinesiabAn increase from baseline indicates an improvement. (h)7.9 (2.99)7.8 (2.90)9.6 (3.29)8.0 (3.28)1.7 (2.81)0.3 (2.56)1.49 (0.94, 2.03)<0.001UPDRS motoraA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement28.8 (13.35)29.3 (12.39)22.6 (12.17)28.6 (13.39)−6.3 (10.08)−0.7 (9.03)−5.66 (−7.53, −3.79)<0.001UPDRS ADLaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement12.3 (5.81)13.2 (6.23)10.2 (5.16)13.1 (6.11)−2.2 (3.93)−0.2 (3.64)−2.25 (−2.99, −1.51)<0.001HAMD-17aA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement6.4 (4.76)7.9 (5.36)4.8 (4.30)7.3 (5.35)−1.6 (4.38)−0.6 (4.33)−1.66 (−2.48, −0.83)<0.001PDSS scale107.1 (23.25)103.3 (27.2)107.4 (24.52)102.1 (26.91)0.5 (21.22)−1.7 (20.57)3.26 (−0.94, 7.47)0.128PDQ-39 subscalecRopinirole PR n = 170 and placebo n = 160.MobilityaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement33.9 (22.99)38.8 (24.64)28.4 (22.92)41.0 (25.38)−5.7 (18.10)2.5 (17.30)−9.34 (−12.87, −5.81)<0.001Activities of daily livingaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement32.2 (22.47)33.8 (22.40)26.1 (21.65)33.2 (24.54)−5.9 (18.20)0.3 (18.95)−6.09 (−9.69, −2.49)<0.001Emotional well-beingaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement22.0 (19.90)27.0 (20.65)17.3 (17.28)26.0 (20.44)−4.8 (17.37)−0.8 (15.30)−5.82 (−8.94, −2.70)<0.001StigmaaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement20.9 (22.19)24.5 (24.47)15.9 (20.17)23.6 (24.36)−5.1 (18.01)−1.1 (18.17)−5.25 (−8.79, −1.71)0.004Social supportdRopinirole PR n = 167 and placebo n = 157; UPDSR motor 0–108, 0 = normal/no symptoms, UPDRS ADL, 0–52, 0 = normal no symptoms; PDSS, 15 scales, 0 = symptom severe and always experienced to 10 = symptom free, cumulative score for the PDSS is 150 (subject is free of all symptoms); PDQ-39 scale = 0–100 for each domain and ranged from 0 to 100, where 0 represents no problems and 100 represents the number of problems; UPDRS: Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale; ADL: Assisted Daily living; HAMD-17: Hamilton Depression rating Scale-17; PDSS:7.6 (15.64)10.0 (16.90)7.1 (14.23)9.4 (17.13)−0.4 (14.63)−0.7 (15.21)−0.96 (−3.81, 1.89)0.507Cognitive impairment30.8 (18.45)31.4 (19.72)29.9 (17.40)31.0 (20.29)−1.1 (14.36)−0.8 (13.28)−0.48 (−3.23, 2.27)0.731CommunicationsaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement16.8 (17.29)19.0 (20.93)15.8 (17.66)21.7 (21.44)−1.1 (12.28)2.6 (17.21)−4.29 (−7.31, −1.27)0.006Bodily discomfortaA decrease from baseline indicates an improvement30.3 (24.24)32.1 (23.29)27.0 (21.36)32.0 (22.47)–3.5 (19.16)0.7 (19.15)4.45 (−8.03, −0.87)0.015CI: confidence interval.a A decrease from baseline indicates an improvementb An increase from baseline indicates an improvement.c Ropinirole PR n = 170 and placebo n = 160.d Ropinirole PR n = 167 and placebo n = 157; UPDSR motor 0–108, 0 = normal/no symptoms, UPDRS ADL, 0–52, 0 = normal no symptoms; PDSS, 15 scales, 0 = symptom severe and always experienced to 10 = symptom free, cumulative score for the PDSS is 150 (subject is free of all symptoms); PDQ-39 scale = 0–100 for each domain and ranged from 0 to 100, where 0 represents no problems and 100 represents the number of problems; UPDRS: Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale; ADL: Assisted Daily living; HAMD-17: Hamilton Depression rating Scale-17; PDSS: Open table in a new tab CI: confidence interval. The efficacy and safety of ropinirole prolonged release tablets as adjunctive therapy in Chinese subjects with advanced Parkinson's disease: A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studyParkinsonism & Related DisordersVol. 19Issue 11PreviewThe first evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) as an adjunct to L-dopa in Chinese patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) not optimally controlled with L-dopa. Full-Text PDF
A Drug‐Drug Interaction Study to Evaluate the Impact of Rimegepant on OCT2‐ and MATE1‐Mediated Transport of Metformin in Healthy Participants

Rajinder Bhardwaj,Beth Morris,Kyle Matschke,Richard Bertz,Robert Croop,Jing Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.1352

2024-01-05

Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development

Abstract:Rimegepant is a calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor antagonist approved for migraine treatment. This phase 1, open‐label, single‐center, fixed‐sequence study evaluated the effect of rimegepant on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of metformin. Twenty‐eight healthy participants received metformin 500 mg twice daily from Days 1 to 4 and Days 7 to 10, and once daily on Days 5 and 11. Rimegepant, 75 mg tablet, was administered once daily from Days 9 to 12. At pre‐specified time points, plasma metformin concentration, serum glucose levels, and safety and tolerability were evaluated. A 16% increase in the area under the plasma metformin concentration‐time curve (AUC) for 1 dosing interval (AUC0‐τ,ss), a statistically insignificant increase in maximum and minimum steady‐state metformin concentration (Cmax,ss and Cmin,ss), and a decrease in metformin renal clearance were observed on Day 11 following metformin‐rimegepant coadministration compared with metformin alone; however, the changes were not clinically relevant. Additionally, coadministration of rimegepant with metformin did not induce clinically meaningful change in the maximum observed glucose concentration (Gmax) or AUCgluc compared with metformin alone. Overall, rimegepant and metformin coadministration did not result in clinically relevant changes in metformin PK, renal clearance, or the antihyperglycemic effects of metformin. Rimegepant is considered safe for use with metformin.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Situational prevention in migraine: are we doing the right thing?

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01841-z

2024-08-23

The Journal of Headache and Pain

Abstract:This commentary addresses the use of rimegepant for situational prevention in migraine management. While the approach of using prophylactic treatments during high-risk periods is not new, its application with rimegepant described by Lipton et al. raises ethical and clinical concerns. These include the challenge of defining high-risk periods, the potential for overmedication, and the risk of medication overuse headache (MOH). The current evidence on MOH with gepants is inconclusive, and recommendations on dosing may be insufficient. Additionally, the long-term safety of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonists remains uncertain, especially regarding cardiovascular and other systemic effects. The commentary emphasizes the need for caution and thorough investigation into the long-term risks and benefits of situational prevention with rimegepant before widespread adoption.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
Augmentation in patients with restless legs syndrome receiving pramipexole therapy: a retrospective study in a single center from China

Tiantian Wang,Miaofa Ying,Rui Zhao,Danyan Zhu,Lisan Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11325-021-02353-9

2021-01-01

Sleep And Breathing

Abstract:Purpose Augmentation is a major complication of long-term pramipexole treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS). However, there have been no studies on augmentation in Chinese patients with RLS. We therefore investigated the clinical characteristics of augmentation in RLS patients treated with pramipexole in a real-world Chinese setting. Methods This study was an observational, retrospective assessment of 103 patients with RLS, who had been continuously treated with pramipexole for at least one month between January 2016 and December 2018 in a tertiary hospital in East China. Demographic data and disease and drug treatment information were collected from electronic medical records and telephone interviews to analyze the rate and clinical features of augmentation. Augmentation was confirmed by Max Planck Institute criteria. Comparisons were made between patients with and without augmentation. Results Fifteen patients (15%) were classified as having augmentation. Compared to RLS patients without augmentation, more patients with augmentation switched from other dopaminergic drugs ( P <0.05) and had a longer duration of RLS symptoms before pramipexole treatment ( P <0.05). In addition, patients with augmentation had a longer duration ( P <0.05) and higher dosage ( P <0.05) of pramipexole than those without augmentation. Augmentation was possibly associated with pramipexole tolerance ( P <0.01). Conclusion The augmentation rate of the Chinese RLS patients in our study was 15%. Augmentation may be associated with switching from other dopaminergic drugs, long disease duration before pramipexole use, the dose and duration of pramipexole, and tolerance to pramipexole.
Long-Term Use of Rimegepant 75 mg for the Acute Treatment of Migraine is Associated with a Reduction in the Utilization of Select Analgesics and Antiemetics

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s456006

IF: 2.8319

2024-05-16

Journal of Pain Research

Abstract:Terence Fullerton, 1 Glenn Pixton 2 1 Internal Medicine and Infectious Disease, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA; 2 Statistics, Pfizer Inc., Groton, CT, USA Correspondence: Terence Fullerton, Internal Medicine and Infectious Disease, Pfizer Research and Development, Pfizer Inc., 445 Eastern Point Road, Groton, CT, 06355, USA, Tel +1 860-441-6548, Email Purpose: To examine use of concomitant analgesics and antiemetics during treatment with rimegepant in adults with migraine. Patients and Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a long-term, open-label, safety study in adults with a history of 2– 14 moderate or severe migraine attacks per month. Participants self-administered rimegepant 75 mg (1) up to once daily as needed (PRN) for 52 weeks or (2) every other day plus PRN (EOD+PRN) for 12 weeks. The PRN cohort was further divided based on baseline attack frequency, with PRN (2– 8) and PRN (9– 14) cohorts having a history of 2– 8 or 9– 14 attacks per month, respectively. Use of select analgesics and antiemetics was analyzed during a 30-day pre-treatment observation period (OP) and during rimegepant treatment. Results: Overall, 1800 rimegepant-treated participants (PRN n = 1514, EOD+PRN n = 286) were included in the analysis. Select analgesics or antiemetics were used by 80.1% of participants during the OP. Among 1441 participants using analgesics or antiemetics during the OP, the proportion who did not use any analgesics or antiemetics following initiation of rimegepant treatment increased during weeks 1– 4 (36.9%), 5– 8 (52.6%), and 9– 12 (56.5%). The mean number of days per month using analgesics or antiemetics was also significantly reduced over time in all cohorts beginning at weeks 1– 4 ( P < 0.001 vs OP). This pattern of reduced analgesic or antiemetic use was consistent for all rimegepant cohorts, but was most pronounced in the EOD+PRN cohort in which 74.8% of participants reported ≥ 50% reduction in analgesic/antiemetic days at weeks 9– 12. Reduction in use was maintained over time, with 61.3% of participants not using any analgesics or antiemetics during weeks 49– 52 of PRN treatment. Conclusion: Long-term treatment with oral rimegepant was associated with reduced analgesic and antiemetic use. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03266588. Keywords: rimegepant, migraine, analgesics, antiemetics, clinical trial Migraine is characterized by recurring, moderate-to-severe, pulsating, unilateral head pain. 1 Migraine may also be associated with other symptoms including photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea. 1,2 Though migraine is one of the most common causes of disability globally, it is still generally underdiagnosed and under-treated. 3,4 In response, migraine awareness campaigns have been carried out at both global and local levels to improve understanding, diagnosis, and treatment. 5,6 Non–migraine-specific therapies such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, caffeinated analgesics, and antiemetics are widely used for the acute treatment of migraine. 7,8 However, the efficacy of these non-specific migraine therapies can be inadequate for more severe migraine pain. 8 These therapies are also associated with medication-overuse headache (MOH) and a variety of other adverse events. 7 Therefore, reducing the use of non-specific migraine medications may reduce total medication exposure, risk of adverse events, and medication overuse. 3,4 Further, replacing non-specific migraine medications with migraine-specific acute treatments could improve therapeutic response and enhance overall patient satisfaction with treatment. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is indicated in the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and other regions for the acute treatment of migraine (taken as needed [PRN]) with or without aura and for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (taken every other day [EOD]) in adults. 9,10 Previous clinical trials have demonstrated that acute treatment with oral rimegepant 75 mg provides rapid (within 2 hours post-dose) and sustained (over 48 hours post-dose) relief from pain and other symptoms associated with migraine (eg, nausea, photophobia, phonophobia), and is safe and well tolerated when dosed for periods of 1 year or more. 11–14 The purpose of this exploratory post hoc analysis was to assess the relationship between rimegepant administration and the use of select analgesics and antiemetics in adults with migraine. Data were from a multicenter, open-label, long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine (NCT03266588). -Abstract Truncated-

clinical neurology
Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

Cristina Tassorelli,Kateryna Onishchenko,Rashmi B Halker Singh,Molly Duan,Laure Dupont-Benjamin,Matthew Hemstock,Corey Voller,Peter McAllister,Stephanie J Nahas,Pranav Gandhi,Jessica Ailani,Rashmi B. Halker Singh,Stephanie J. Nahas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024241235156

2024-02-29

Cephalalgia

Abstract:Cephalalgia, Volume 44, Issue 2, February 2024. BackgroundComparative evaluations of preventive migraine treatments can help inform clinical decision making for managing migraine in clinical practice.MethodsAn anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis was conducted using pooled participant-level data from two phase 3 atogepant trials (ADVANCE and PROGRESS) and one phase 2/3 rimegepant trial (BHV3000-305) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments. Participants receiving atogepant 60 mg once daily, rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg once every other day, and placebo were included. Only participants meeting the BHV3000-305 inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed: ≥6 monthly migraine days and ≤18 monthly headache days at baseline. The primary efficacy assessment of interest was change in monthly migraine days across weeks 1–12.ResultsThere were 252 participants in the atogepant group and 348 in the rimegepant group. Across weeks 1–12, atogepant 60 mg demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in mean monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg (mean difference [95% CI]: −1.65 [−2.49, −0.81]; p < 0.001). Both atogepant and rimegepant demonstrated similar safety/tolerability profiles.ConclusionIn this matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis, oral atogepant 60 mg once daily demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine days compared with rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet once every other day.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
The efficacy and safety of ropinirole prolonged release tablets as adjunctive therapy in Chinese subjects with advanced Parkinson's disease: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Zhenxin Zhang,Jian Wang,Xiaoying Zhang,Shengdi Chen,Zhenfu Wang,Baorong Zhang,Chunfeng Liu,Qiumin Qu,Yan Cheng,Jie Li,Haijun Cao,Meng Cai,Rongxuan Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.parkreldis.2013.07.009

IF: 4.402

2013-01-01

Parkinsonism & Related Disorders

Abstract:The first evaluation of the efficacy and safety of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) as an adjunct to L-dopa in Chinese patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) not optimally controlled with L-dopa.In a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study, subjects with advanced PD were randomized 1:1 to ropinirole PR (N = 175) or placebo (N = 170) as add-on therapy to L-dopa. Primary outcome measure was change from baseline in awake time spent "off". Starting dose of ropinirole PR was 2 mg/day, titrated based on clinical response (maximum 24 mg/day).At week 24, the mean dose of ropinirole PR was 11.4 mg/day with a mean reduction of L-dopa from 506.6 to 411.6 mg/day. Subjects receiving ropinirole PR experienced a significant reduction of "off" time (2.1 h) compared with placebo (0.4 h). Secondary outcome measures including hours of "on" time without troublesome dyskinesis were significantly increased in the ropinirole PR group (1.7 h) compared with placebo (0.3 h). Subjects classified as responders were significantly more frequent in the ropinirole PR (22.8%) than placebo group (2.5%). Efficacy outcomes including Unified Parkinson's disease Rating Scale and PDQ-39 subscales of mobility were significantly improved in the ropinirole PR versus placebo group. The most frequent adverse event experienced in the ropinirole PR group was dyskinesia.This study demonstrated for the first time in Chinese subjects that ropinirole PR improved Parkinson's disease symptoms, permitting a reduction in L-dopa dose. The adverse events observed were consistent with the established safety profile of ropinirole, with no new safety signal identified.
An Open-Label Extension Study to Evaluate the Safety of Ropinirole Prolonged Release in Chinese Patients with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease

Zhenxin Zhang,Jian Wang,Xiaoying Zhang,Shengdi Chen,Zhenfu Wang,Baorong Zhang,Chunfeng Liu,Qiumin Qu,Yan Cheng,Rongxuan Zhu,Jie Li,Jingqiu Hu,Meng Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2015.1005835

2015-01-01

Current Medical Research and Opinion

Abstract:Objective:This open-label extension (OLE) study evaluated the safety profile of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) administered for 24 weeks as adjunctive to levodopa in Chinese patients with advanced Parkinson's disease (PD).Methods:This was a 24 week, flexible-dose, OLE study in Chinese patients with advanced PD who received 24 week treatment with ropinirole PR in the preceding double-blind (DB), phase III study (NCT01154166) and had no break in receiving study treatment while switching from the DB study to the OLE study. In the OLE study, patients received ropinirole PR once daily, starting with 2 mg/d and increasing up to 8 mg/d at week 4 (2mg increment/week); if tolerable, the dose could be further increased in 4mg increments up to 24 mg/d according to clinical judgment. There were no efficacy assessments. Safety assessments included monitoring adverse events (AEs), neurological examination, Gambling Symptom Assessment Scale questionnaire, liver chemistry, and laboratory tests.Results:Of the 295 enrolled patients, 282 completed the study. The most common reason for withdrawal was AEs (n = 9, 3.1%). The mean duration to ropinirole PR treatment was 173.1 days and an overall median daily dose of ropinirole was 8mg (range: 2-24 mg). Overall, 114 (38.6%) patients experienced on-treatment AEs; the most frequent reported AEs (>= 2%) were dyskinesia (6.1%), dizziness (4.1%), nausea (3.4%), hallucinations (3.4%), somnolence (2.7%) and decreased weight (2.4%). Sixty-eight patients (23.1%) experienced treatment-related AEs. Six patients experienced serious AEs (SAEs), of which hallucination was determined to be a treatment-related SAE. There were no other significant safety findings. No new safety signals for ropinirole were identified.Conclusion:The safety profile of ropinirole was consistent with the preceding DB study and also with the established safety profile for ropinirole. Results support the long-term use of ropinirole PR as an adjunctive to levodopa in Chinese patients with advanced PD.
Adverse events associated with Atogepant: a faers-based pharmacovigilance analysis

Ying Zhang,Shengzhu Sun,Yuming Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2024.2393268

2024-09-06

Abstract:Background: Migraine,a prevalent neurovascular disorder,can significantly disrupt an individual's daily life.Atogepant (AGN-241689),an orally administered small molecule drug classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist,is utilized for prophylactic migraine treatment.The objective of this study was to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with atogepant through data mining in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) to enhance clinical safety. Methods: Data for atogepant were obtained from the FAERS database covering Q3 2021 through Q4 2023.Disproportionality analysis was employed to quantify relevant AEs associated with atogepant.Reported Ratio of Ratios (ROR) was utilized for identifying risk signals within the FAERS data.This methodology relies on the System Organ Class (SOC) and Preferred Terminology (PT) of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).Results:From the FAERS database,a collection of 7,991,243 reports was obtained.Among these reports,a subset of 3015 were identified as 'primary suspected (PS)' AEs specifically related to atogepant.AEs induced by atogepant were observed across 27 organ systems.A total of 48 significantly disproportionate Preferred Terminologies (PTs) meeting all four algorithms were identified. Conclusion: Our study has identified adverse events (AEs) associated with atogepant,potentially providing crucial support for the clinical monitoring and risk identification of atogepant.
Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine

Jessica Ailani,Pranav Gandhi,Anjana Lalla,Rashmi Halker Singh,Peter McAllister,Jonathan H Smith,Brett Dabruzzo,Natty Chalermpalanupap,Kari Kelton,Stephanie J Nahas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14824

Abstract:Objective: To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Background: Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. Methods: An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). Results: In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusions: Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Post-marketing safety concerns with rimegepant based on a pharmacovigilance study

A real-world adverse events study of rimegepant from the FAERS database

First real-world study on the effectiveness and tolerability of rimegepant for acute migraine therapy in Chinese patients

A multicenter, open-label long-term safety study of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine

Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine in adults from China: a subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial

Real-world study of adverse events associated with gepant use in migraine treatment based on the VigiAccess and U.S. Food and Drug Administration's adverse event reporting system databases

No clinically relevant electrocardiogram effects in a randomized TQT study of single therapeutic/supratherapeutic rimegepant doses in healthy adults

Characterization of rimegepant drug-drug interactions using the cytochrome P450 probe drugs, itraconazole, rifampin, fluconazole, and midazolam

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rimegepant for on-demand acute treatment of migraine in China

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305)

Bioequivalence of rimegepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, administered as an oral tablet, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, and a supralingual orally disintegrating tablet: two phase 1 randomized studies in healthy adults

Corrigendum to “the Efficacy and Safety of Ropinirole Prolonged Release Tablets As Adjunctive Therapy in Chinese Subjects with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study” [parkinsonism and Related Disorders 19 (2013) 1022–1026]

A Drug‐Drug Interaction Study to Evaluate the Impact of Rimegepant on OCT2‐ and MATE1‐Mediated Transport of Metformin in Healthy Participants

Situational prevention in migraine: are we doing the right thing?

Augmentation in patients with restless legs syndrome receiving pramipexole therapy: a retrospective study in a single center from China

Long-Term Use of Rimegepant 75 mg for the Acute Treatment of Migraine is Associated with a Reduction in the Utilization of Select Analgesics and Antiemetics

Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis

The efficacy and safety of ropinirole prolonged release tablets as adjunctive therapy in Chinese subjects with advanced Parkinson's disease: a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

An Open-Label Extension Study to Evaluate the Safety of Ropinirole Prolonged Release in Chinese Patients with Advanced Parkinson’s Disease

Adverse events associated with Atogepant: a faers-based pharmacovigilance analysis

Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine