Search

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U.)

Background: Real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan, a new medication for acute migraine attacks, is necessary., Methods: We performed a prospective, observational, multi-center, real-world study. A total of 48 patients with migraine (44 females, 44.6 ± 12.9 years old) were included in this study., Results: Twenty-three patients (47.9%) reported they were headache-free two hours after taking lasmiditan and were categorized into the responder group. In total, 44 patients (91.7%) experienced at least one side effect within two hours of taking the medication. Dizziness, somnolence, malaise, nausea, and palpitations were reported by 56.3% (n = 27), 45.8% (n = 22), 37.5% (n = 18), 20.8% (n = 10), and 14.6% (n = 7) of patients respectively. Of 48 patients, 20 (41.7%) indicated that they preferred lasmiditan to their previous acute treatment. There were no predictive factors for efficacy., Conclusion: This real-world study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan. More than 90% of patients experienced side effects from lasmiditan. Approximately 40% of patients preferred lasmiditan despite the occurrence of side effects., Competing Interests: Authors’ noteThe principal investigator is Ryotaro Ishii, who had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article. Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: RI has served as a consultant for Amgen K.K., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. He has received lecture fees from Amgen K.K., Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.KI has nothing to disclose.NW has nothing to disclose.RF has nothing to disclose.MT has nothing to disclose.JN has received honoraria and research scholarships from Amgen K.K. and Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.TT served as a consultant/advisor and/or served on an advisory board for Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Amgen K.K., Teijin Pharma Limited, and Pfizer Japan. He received honoraria from Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Amgen K.K., Kowa Co., Ltd., Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd., UCB Japan Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Santen Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. He received funds from Eli Lilly Japan K.K., Pfizer Japan Inc., and Tsumura & Co. outside the submitted work.

Background: The objective of this analysis was to gain new insights into the patient characteristics and other factors associated with lasmiditan usage and clinical outcomes under conditions resembling the real-world setting., Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of data from the 12-month, open-label extension (OLE) of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled CENTURION trial, which examined the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan as acute treatment across four migraine attacks. Patients completing the main study who treated ≥ 3 attacks could continue in the OLE. The initial lasmiditan dose was 100 mg, with dose adjustments to 50 mg or 200 mg allowed at the investigator's discretion. Patient and clinical characteristics were summarized by dosing pattern and completion status. Safety was assessed based on adverse event (AE) frequency by number of doses., Results: In total, 445 patients treated ≥ 1 migraine attacks with lasmiditan during the OLE, 321 of whom (72.1%) completed the study. Forty-seven percent of patients remained on the 100-mg initial dose during the OLE whereas 20.2% used both 100 mg and 50 mg, 30.6% used both 100 mg and 200 mg, and 6 (1.3%) used multiple dose levels. All dosing patterns were associated with clinical and patient-reported improvement; however, the 100-mg group had the highest proportion of patients reporting improvement in the Patient Global Impression of Change - Migraine Headache Condition (56.5% vs 33.4%-52.2%). In comparison, all three groups that made dose adjustments had higher rates of completion compared to the 100-mg group (72.1%-83.3% vs 68.9%). The frequency of AEs decreased with continued use of lasmiditan. Concomitant triptans and lasmiditan use did not increase AE frequency., Conclusions: Based on high persistence and patient satisfaction rates, the 100-mg dose appears optimal for most patients. For those who adjusted dose levels, dose adjustments appeared beneficial to improve efficacy or tolerability, retaining patients on treatment. Collectively, the data suggest that patients who experienced efficacy continued to use lasmiditan regardless of the occurrence or frequency of AEs, and continued use appeared associated with fewer AEs., Trial Registration: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT): 2018-001661-17; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03670810; registration date: September 12, 2018., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches., Methods: We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1., Results: A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue., Conclusions: In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Recently, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (rimegepant, and ubrogepant), and selective serotonin receptor agonists (lasmiditan) in the management of migraine. However, the exact safety and efficacy profile of these drugs is unclear so far., Methods: The study's primary objective was to determine the exact safety and efficacy profile. The overall estimate was calculated in terms of risk ratios using a suitable model. The subgroup analysis was also performed to check the effect of individual drugs on the outcome, whereas sensitivity analysis was performed to check the effects of outliers on the outcome. All the analyses were performed using Rev Man 5. The drugs have shown significant improvement in efficacy parameters (pain freedom, most bothersome symptoms, phonophobia, nausea, and photophobia)., Results: The subgroup analysis results have shown significant improvement in all efficacy parameters in the rimegepant and ubrogepant groups. The effect of ubrogepant on safety parameters was found to be non-significant, indicating a better safety profile of ubrogepant than lasmiditan., Conclusion: The sensitivity analysis results have shown no effect of outliers on the efficacy parameters. Based on the available evidence, recently approved drugs are effective in the treatment of migraine, however, associated with few adverse drug reactions., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Migraine constitutes the world's second-leading cause of disability. Triptans, as serotonin 5-HT 1B/1D receptor agonists, remain the first-line treatment, despite discouraged use in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan, a selective lipophilic 5-HT 1F agonist without vasoconstrictive effects, is an emerging option. We aimed to investigate the safety profile of lasmiditan in the WHO pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase ® ) using a comparative disproportionality analysis with triptans. VigiBase ® was queried for all reports involving lasmiditan and triptans. Disproportionality analyses relied on the calculation of the information component (IC), for which 95% confidence interval (CI) lower bound positivity was required for signal detection. We obtained 826 reports involving lasmiditan. Overall, 10 adverse drug reaction classes were disproportionately reported with triptans, while only neurological (IC 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.7) and psychiatric (IC 1.5; 95% CI 1.3-1.7) disorders were disproportionately reported with lasmiditan. Sedation, serotonin syndrome, euphoric mood, and autoscopy had the strongest signals. When compared with triptans, 19 out of 22 neuropsychiatric signals persisted. The results of our analysis provide a more precise semiology of the neuropsychiatric effects of lasmiditan, with symptoms such as autoscopy and panic attacks. The cardiovascular adverse drug reaction risk with triptans was confirmed. In contrast, caution is warranted with lasmiditan use in patients with neurological or psychiatric comorbidities or serotonin syndrome risk. Our study was hindered by pharmacovigilance flaws, and further studies should help in validating these results. Our findings suggest that lasmiditan is a safe alternative for migraine treatment, especially when the neuropsychiatric risk is outweighed by the cardiovascular burden., (© 2023. The American Society for Experimental Neurotherapeutics, Inc.)

Migraine is a common neurological disorder that is present in a large proportion of the global population. It is estimated to occur in around 20.7% of women and 10.7% of men in the United States. The pathophysiology of migraine is a major focus of research, and medications have been developed to interrupt the processes that generate headache and other bothersome symptoms of migraine attacks. The triptan class of medications acts as a direct agonist at the 5-HT1B/D receptor but its use is limited by contraindications for those with coronary or cerebrovascular disease. Lasmiditan is a first-in-class agonist at the 5-HT1F serotonin receptor that does not appear to generate vasoconstriction. This article reviews the design, development, and place in therapy for lasmiditan. A narrative review of the literature using the Ovid MEDLINE database was performed. The rationale behind the development of lasmiditan and pre-clinical, proof-of-concept, Phase II, pivotal, Phase III trials and post-hoc data is covered. Additionally, the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan when compared to other acute treatments in migraine is described, including lasmiditan's side effect profile and status as a Schedule V substance. Further, head-to-head studies of lasmiditan compared with other acute treatments are required., Competing Interests: Christopher C. Anderson has no conflicts to disclose for this work. Juliana H. VanderPluym reports research grant from Amgen and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Contract No. 290-2015-00013-I, Investigator, 2020. She acts as Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, Headache Section Co-editor, 2020-Present., (© 2023 Anderson and VanderPluym.)

Introduction: There have been significant advances in the treatment of migraine. In response to the clinical success of monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, there is interest in the clinical trial outcomes of alternative emerging drugs that act on novel targets associated with migraine pathophysiology. As approximately 50% of patients do not respond to CGRP therapies, there is significant value in future drug innovation. Emerging drugs in clinical trials for the treatment of migraine aim to fill this need., Areas Covered: The emerging drugs that will be discussed in this review include zavegepant, lasmiditan, delta opioid receptor agonists, neuronal nitric oxide synthase inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) and its receptor, dual orexin receptor antagonists, metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonists, and inducers of ketosis., Expert Opinion: When considering the preclinical and clinical research related to the emerging drug classes discussed in this review, most therapies are derived from highly supported targets of migraine pathogenesis. Although the individual drugs discussed in this review may be of dubious clinical value, the importance of the therapeutic targets on which they act cannot be understated. Future research is necessary to appropriately target the pathways elucidated by preclinical studies.

Background: Following the CENTURION phase 3 randomized controlled trial's four-month double-blind phase, this 12-month open-label extension collected data for up to one year about dose optimization, patterns of use, migraine-related disability, and quality of life during lasmiditan treatment., Methods: Migraine patients ≥18 years completing the double-blind phase and treating ≥3 migraine attacks could continue into the 12-month open-label extension. The initial oral lasmiditan dose was 100 mg; the dose could subsequently be adjusted to 50 mg or 200 mg at the investigator's discretion., Results: 477 patients entered and 321 (72.1%) completed the extension; 445 (93.3%) treated ≥1 attack with lasmiditan. Of 11,327 attacks, 8654 (76.4%) were lasmiditan-treated (84.9% of these involved moderate or severe pain). By study end, 17.8%, 58.7%, and 23.4% of patients were taking lasmiditan 50, 100, and 200 mg, respectively. Mean improvements were observed in disability and quality of life. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was dizziness (35.7% of patients, 9.5% of attacks)., Conclusions: During this 12-month extension, lasmiditan was associated with a high rate of study completion, most attacks were treated with lasmiditan, and patients reported improvements in migraine-related disability and quality of life. No new safety findings were observed with longer exposure. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03670810); European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUDRA CT: 2018-001661-17).

Background: We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis to study the efficacy and safety of newly developed drugs for the acute treatment of migraine attacks., Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase and The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to 11 February 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials examining all formulations of lasmiditan, rimegepant and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of adults with migraine, were included. Data were extracted following the PRISMA guidelines., Results: Seven studies (SAMURAI, SPARTAN, CENTURION, Study 302, Study 303, ACHIEVE I and II) involving n  = 12,859 patients were included. All treatments were superior in efficacy to placebo. Lasmiditan 200 mg showed the highest two-hour pain freedom, while two-hour freedom from most bothersome symptom was equally achieved by the higher doses of lasmiditan (100 and 200 mg), rimegepant and the higher doses of ubrogepant (50 and 100 mg). The odds of treatment-emergent adverse events were greatest with all doses of lasmiditan., Conclusion: Lasmiditan 200 mg was the most effective intervention in the treatment of migraine attacks, although it was associated with high degrees of dizziness, nausea and somnolence. Rimegepant showed slightly lower, but similar efficacy rates to lasmiditan. Ubrogepant had overall the best tolerability profile. These conclusions are limited by the absence of head-to-head comparisons, limitations of individual trials and of the meta-analysis methodology itself. PROSPERO trial registration: CRD42022308224.

Background: For many years triptans have been the cornerstone of acute migraine treatment. Nevertheless, treatment with triptans may not always be initiated due to contraindications (seen in approximately one fifth of patients) or inadequate response (seen in approximately one third of patients). New acute therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) 1F receptor agonists, also known as ditans (lasmiditan) and small molecule antagonists of the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, also known as gepants (rimegepant and ubrogepant), may be an effective alternative. Methods: We searched Pubmed for keywords, summarized the literature and provided a comprehensive review on the place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans. Results and conclusion: Post-hoc analyses reported no differences in efficacy of gepants/ditans between responders and non-responders to triptans, but research is hampered by lack of consensus on the definition of non-responder. Due to (partially) overlapping mechanisms of action, it remains unknown whether combination therapy with lasmiditan, gepants and triptans will have added value over monotherapy. Preclinical studies and post-hoc analyses cautiously indicate that these new drugs are safe for patients with cardiovascular risk factors. However, long-term studies are needed to prove cardiovascular safety. The risk of developing medication overuse headache may differ between triptans, ditans and gepants, but further studies are needed to confirm this difference. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials of acute therapies and combinations of therapies are needed to determine their place in migraine treatment among established therapies.

Background: MONONOFU, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine, was pivotal for lasmiditan approval in Japan. However, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common than in global studies. A detailed safety profile would assist patient management., Research Design and Methods: Safety assessments in MONONOFU included specific terms reported, frequency, severity, time to onset, duration, TEAE management, common TEAE risk factors, and TEAE-efficacy associations., Results: Of 846 participants, 691 were assessed for safety. The proportion of participants reporting ≥1 TEAE was 23.4% with placebo and 70.9% with lasmiditan; 87.3% of TEAEs with lasmiditan were mild. The most frequent TEAEs with lasmiditan, dizziness (39.4%) and somnolence (19.3%), started ≤1 hour postdose (median durations: 2.5 and 3.3 hours, respectively). Higher lasmiditan dose, but not patient factors including body size, was identified as a clinically meaningful predictor of dizziness and somnolence. There were no adverse consequences of neurological TEAEs, which did not appear to adversely affect lasmiditan efficacy., Conclusions: In the MONONOFU study, TEAEs appeared typically mild, transient, and self-limiting. Lasmiditan may represent a useful and well-tolerated acute treatment option for smaller (body mass index <30 kg/m 2 ) patients and Asian patients with migraine.

Background: Some migraine treatments are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or risk factors (CVRFs). We report safety and efficacy of lasmiditan, a new oral acute migraine treatment with no cardiovascular contraindication, in Japanese patients with CVRFs., Research Design and Methods: MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine (met International Headache Society criteria, Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥11, disabling migraine for ≥1 year). Eligible patients were randomized (7:3:7:6) to placebo or lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg. This prespecified analysis described CVDs, CVRFs, and cardiovascular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Efficacy (proportion pain-free, experienced pain relief, most bothersome symptom-free, or disability-free 2 hours post-dose) was evaluated within CVRF subgroups (≤1, ≥2)., Results: Of 846 randomized patients, 691 were analyzed (CVRF≤1: 375; CVRF≥2: 316). The proportion of lasmiditan-treated patients with ≥1 TEAE was not related to CVRF numbers. Eighteen (3.8%) lasmiditan-treated and three (1.4%) placebo-treated patients reported likely cardiovascular TEAEs. Lasmiditan was more effective than placebo at relieving pain, symptoms, and disability in both CVRF subgroups. There was no consistent relationship between CVRF subgroups and efficacy., Conclusions: Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective in Japanese patients with migraine and CVRFs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962738.

Background: Perimenstrual migraine attacks in women with menstrual migraine is difficult to treat. This post-hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of lasmiditan, a high affinity and selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist, for perimenstrual attacks., Methods: Patients from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials (MONONOFU and CENTURION) were instructed to treat an attack with a single dose of study medication within four hours of pain onset. After dosing, the proportion of patients who achieved freedom from migraine-related head pain, most bothersome symptom, and disability was reported at baseline up to 48 hours after dose and pooled data were evaluated., Results: A total of 303 patients (MONONOFU N = 78; CENTURION N = 225) treated perimenstrual migraine attacks with lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 24), 100 mg (N = 90), 200 mg (N = 110), and placebo (N = 79). More patients achieved migraine-related head pain freedom with lasmiditan 200 mg versus placebo at all time points assessed. At 2 hours, 33.6% of patients in the 200-mg group (p < 0.001), and 16.7% of patients in the 100-mg (p = 0.11) and 50-mg (p = 0.19) groups were pain free, compared with 7.6% in the placebo group., Conclusions: Lasmiditan treatment of perimenstrual migraine attacks was associated with freedom from migraine-related head pain at two hours, early onset of efficacy, and sustained efficacy. Clinical Trial registration: NCT03962738 and NCT03670810.

Introduction: This MONONOFU trial subgroup analysis evaluates the efficacy of lasmiditan across patient and migraine characteristics in Japanese patients with migraine., Methods: MONONOFU trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly assigned in a 3:7:6:7 ratio to receive lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo for a single migraine attack within 4 h of pain onset. Efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo was evaluated at 2 h post dose for proportion of patients with headache pain freedom. Efficacy was assessed across patient characteristics (age, sex, body weight, cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), and comorbidity of tension-type headache), migraine disease characteristics (history of migraine with aura, migraine prevention therapy, triptan response, and triptan use or nonuse), and migraine attack characteristics (headache severity, aggressive headache, attack during perimenstrual period, time to dosing, time of dosing, experienced treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) of dizziness, and experienced TEAE of somnolence). Logistic regression was used; all subgroup analyses were not analyzed with multiplicity-adjusted statistical tests., Results: Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by each arm) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups and lasmiditan doses, except for CVRF (100 mg and 200 mg), migraine with aura (50 mg), triptan response (50 mg), and time to dosing (200 mg). Treatment-by-subgroup interactions (by overall) were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for pain freedom at 2 h post dose across all patient subgroups, except for CVRFs. Higher proportions of patients were pain free at 2 h post dose when treated with lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg) versus placebo, irrespective of most patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics., Conclusion: Although few interactions were observed, lasmiditan could be a promising acute treatment option in a wide range of Japanese patients with migraine, as efficacy is not generally influenced by patient and migraine characteristics., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: Although migraine is common, there are very few treatment options. Recently, lasmiditan, a specific 5-HT 1F agonist, has gained approval as abortive therapy for migraine. This meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to analyze efficacy and tolerability of lasmiditan therapy for episodic migraine., Materials and Methods: Phase II and Phase III double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating lasmiditan for episodic migraine were searched for from electronic databases. The risk of bias was estimated, data were extracted, and relative risk (RR) were calculated for efficacy and safety outcomes with a fixed/random effect model. Forest plots and funnel plots were created. TSA graph was plotted. Therapeutic gain with lasmiditan was calculated., Results: Six high-quality RCTs were included with 7122 patients. Compared to placebo, lasmiditan demonstrated a significant proportion of migraineurs reporting freedom from headache, most bothersome symptom, headache response, no disability, global impression "very much/much better" 2 h posttreatment and sustained pain freedom at 24 and 48 h with 50, 100, 200, and 400 mg doses (RR range = 1.26-2.50). 39.3% of patients in the lasmiditan group (RR = 2.43) reported one or more treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Dizziness, somnolence, paresthesia, fatigue, nausea, vertigo, hypoesthesia, asthenia, muscular weakness, lethargy, and malaise had a high incidence (RR range = 3.16-12.77). Most TEAEs were mild to moderate. No vasoconstriction-related TEAE was reported., Conclusion: Lasmiditan demonstrated efficacy as abortive therapy for episodic migraine with central nervous system-related side effects., Competing Interests: None

Introduction: Lasmiditan is the first 5-HT 1F receptor agonist with potential to address the huge unmet medical needs for the treatment of migraine in China. The CENTURION study was the first phase 3 study of lasmiditan in Caucasian and Chinese patients with migraine. This post hoc analysis further demonstrates the safety profile of lasmiditan in the Chinese population and was urgently needed., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lasmiditan 200 mg lasmiditan 100 mg, or a control group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), their severity, and incidence by treated attacks for frequently reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) were evaluated. The duration, onset, and relationship of efficacy with very common TEAEs (≥ 10%) was analyzed., Results: A total of 281 Chinese patients were included in this post hoc analysis. No deaths and no study drug-related treatment emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were reported. The incidence of at least one TEAE was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan 200 mg (73.9%) and 100 mg (66.3%) versus placebo (26.6%). TEAEs were generally mild or moderate in severity, and the incidence of frequently reported TEAEs was generally highest during the first attack. Very common TEAEs with lasmiditan included dizziness, asthenia, somnolence, muscular weakness, fatigue, and nausea. The duration of dizziness was longest during the first attack. There were no cardio-cerebrovascular ischemic events and serotonin syndrome. The presence of very common TEAEs (except nausea), and severe dizziness, did not appear to have a negative influence on the efficacy., Conclusion: In the Chinese population of the CENTURION study, most of the TEAEs were neurologic, of mild or moderate severity, and self-limiting. The distribution of frequently reported TEAEs at the first attack differed from the primary cohort, while the overall safety profile of lasmiditan in the Chinese population was generally consistent with the CENTURION primary cohort. No new safety concerns were observed in the Chinese population., Trial Registration: NCT03670810., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: Migraine attack is characterized by disabling pain and associated symptoms. Triptans represent the "gold standard" therapy, but cardiac subjects have significant limitations for this approach. New drug families are under consideration to expand therapeutic offerings, especially in the presence of contraindications or for non-responsive patients. This review aimed to analyze studies related to the category of "ditans," with a focus on lasmiditan, which is available for human use., Materials and Methods: We consulted PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and www., Clinicaltrials: gov to find both original and review articles on the mechanism of action of 5-HT1F agonists in migraine, and for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) on the family of drugs called "ditans," with a focus on "lasmiditan," published in the time frame of 01-Jan-2010 to 31-Mar-2022. Only studies conducted in human subjects and published in English were included in this review., Results: We retrieved four RCTs (named SAMURAI, SPARTAN, GLADIATOR, and CENTURION) and several studies that analyzed the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan at increasing doses showed significant improvement in pain and most other troublesome symptoms at 2 h. Adverse events were mild and mainly represented by dizziness, vertigo, drowsiness, and fatigue. No vasoconstrictive effects were described, suggesting the use of ditans as a safe option in chronic cardio- and cerebro-vascular disease., Discussion: Lasmiditan could be a viable alternative to triptans, although further RCT studies and real-world evidence are needed to better understand its potential and possible adverse events in a larger population., (© 2022. Fondazione Società Italiana di Neurologia.)

Background: In the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA)., Methods: Data included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings., Results: Across 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant., Conclusions: The efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objective: The robust enrollment in SPARTAN and SAMURAI provided the opportunity to present post-hoc descriptive details on migraine disease characteristics and treatment outcomes after treatment with lasmiditan, a selective serotonin (5-HT 1F ) receptor agonist, in racial and ethnic subgroups., Methods: Descriptive data from racial (White [W]( n  = 3471) and Black or African American [AA]( n  = 792)) and ethnic (Hispanic or Latinx [HL]( n  = 775) and Non-Hispanic or Latinx [Non-HL]( n  = 3637)) populations are presented on pooled data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT2605174]). Patients were treated with lasmiditan (50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg) or placebo for a single migraine attack of moderate-to-severe intensity. Efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Safety was evaluated and reported by occurrences of adverse events., Results: Clinical characteristics were generally similar across populations. W participants had longer migraine history than AA participants, and Non-HL participants had more migraine disability than HL participants. In the lasmiditan single-attack studies, AA participants waited longer than W participants to take study drug. A higher proportion of HL participants rated baseline migraine severity as severe compared to Non-HL participants. Response to lasmiditan was similar across racial and ethnic groups, including pain response, freedom from most bothersome symptom and migraine-related disability, and safety and tolerability. Across multiple outcomes, AA and HL participants tended to report more positive outcomes., Conclusions: There were few differences in demographic and clinical characteristics across racial and ethnic groups. Similar lasmiditan efficacy and safety outcomes were observed in AA versus W participants, and in HL versus Non-HL participants. Small observed differences may be driven by a tendency toward a more positive response observed across all treatment groups by AA and HL participants.

Background and Purpose: Lasmiditan is a novel selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist, recently approved for acute treatment of migraine. 5-HT 1F receptors are widely expressed in the CNS and trigeminovascular system. Here, we have explored the therapeutic effects of 5-HT 1F receptor activation in preclinical models of migraine and cluster headache., Experimental Approach: Electrical stimulation of the dura mater or the superior salivatory nucleus in anaesthetised rats evoked trigeminovascular or trigeminal-autonomic reflex activation at the level of the trigeminocervical complex. Additionally, cranial autonomic manifestations in response to trigeminal-autonomic reflex activation were measured, via anterior choroidal blood flow alterations. These responses were then challenged with lasmiditan. We explored the tissue distribution of mRNA for 5-HT 1F receptors in human post-mortem tissue and of several 5-HT 1 receptor subtypes in specific tissue beds., Key Results: Lasmiditan dose-dependently reduced trigeminovascular activation in a preclinical model of migraine. Lasmiditan also reduced superior salivatory nucleus-evoked activation of the trigeminal-autonomic reflex, but had no effect on cranial autonomic activation. mRNA profiling in human tissue showed expression of the 5-HT 1F receptor in several structures relevant for migraine and cluster headache., Conclusion and Implications: Our data suggest that lasmiditan acts, at least in part, as an anti-migraine agent by reducing trigeminovascular activation. Furthermore, our results highlight a clear action for lasmiditan in a preclinical model of cluster headache. Given the proven translational efficacy of this model, our data support the potential utility of lasmiditan as a therapeutic option for the acute treatment of cluster headache attacks., Linked Articles: This article is part of a themed issue on Advances in Migraine and Headache Therapy (BJP 75th Anniversary). To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v179.3/issuetoc., (© 2021 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only., Methods: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication., Results: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo ( p  < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only., Conclusions: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans. Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Objective: In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine., Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48 hours post-dose, and adverse events. No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs., Results: Five RCTs were identified as follows: rimegepant study 303 (n = 1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n = 1,672 and n = 1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n = 2,231 and n = 3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48 hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness., Conclusions: Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Purpose: In four large controlled trials with lasmiditan and ubrogepant placebo was administered in the first step to demonstrate an effect on migraine attack. In the same trials the investigators also asked the question: is a second dose of the drug effective in non-responders to the first dose? In this phase patients who received placebo in the first phase of the trial again after 2 hours received another dose of placebo., Conclusion: To be ethical, clinical research requires balancing rigorous science with the protection of human subjects; and it is, in our view, questionable whether placebo was used with "scientific rigor" in the second step of these trials, and this design is not recommended.

Migraine is a common neurovascular disease which has been classified as the sixth most disabling disorder. Current migraine therapy was triptans, however, riptans can cause contraction of blood vessels. Therefore, novel drugs without cardiovascular effects emerged, such as CGRP and selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonists. In this work, a series of pyridinylmethylenepiperidine derivatives were designed, synthesized and evaluated for their 5-HT 1F receptor agonist activity. The results in vitro showed that compound C1-C6 displayed potent agonist activities compared with positive drug lasmiditan. Pharmacokinetic properties in rat indicated that 2,4,6-trifluoro-N-(6-(fluoro(1-methylpiperidin-4-ylidene)methyl)pyridin-2-yl)benzamide (C5) possessed high AUC and good bioavailability. In two rodent models of migraine, C5 significantly inhibited dural plasma protein extravasation and c-fos expression in the trigeminal nucleus caudalis. Moreover, C5 showed no effect on vasoconstriction. Through these studies, we identified C5 as a potent 5-HT 1F receptor agonist for migraine therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Monotherapy with triptans in acute migraine is ineffective in many patients and contraindicated in certain cardiovascular diseases where alternative therapeutic options are necessary to explore. This meta-analysis has evaluated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for the treatment of acute migraine in adults. After performing a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted data from 4 relevant articles. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. A random-effects model was used to estimate effect size. Quality assessment was done using the risk of bias assessment tool and meta-regression for probable variables affecting effect size. Subgroup analysis was done depending on the dose of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan use was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with pain freedom (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-2.39; P < .00001), sustained pain freedom (OR, 1.93; 95%CI, 1.55-2.39; P <.00001), headache response (OR, 2.05; 95%CI, 1.77-2.36; P < .00001), clinical disability level (OR, 1.36; 95%CI, 1.20-1.55; P < .00001), patients' global impression (OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.69-2.10; P < .00001), and significantly lower use of rescue medication (OR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.38-0.63; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Lasmiditan use was also associated with a higher likelihood of adverse effects like dizziness (OR, 6.54; 95%CI, 4.24-10.07; P < .00001), paresthesia (OR, 4.28; 95%CI, 2.97-6.17; P < .00001), and fatigue (OR, 5.67; 95%CI, 3.78-8.52; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a dose-dependent effect of lasmiditan on pain freedom, sustained pain freedom, patient's global impression, and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Prediction probability for effect estimate favoring placebo was calculated to be 0.0017%. Lasmiditan has shown a favorable effect in terms of efficacy and safety in the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in comparison to placebo. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and use in specific subgroups of patients. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020177838., (© 2021, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: Lasmiditan (LTN) is a selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. We present detailed safety findings from the placebo-controlled, double-blind Phase 3 study, of LTN treatment across 4 attacks (CENTURION)., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to LTN 200 mg (LTN200), LTN100, or a control group that received placebo for 3 attacks and LTN50 for either the 3rd or 4th attack (1:1). Safety analyses were conducted for patients who took ≥1 dose of study drug and, in some cases, those who took all 4 doses., Results: Overall, 1471 patients treated 4494 attacks. The incidences of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (SAEs) were - placebo, n=2 (0.4 %); LTN100, n=1 (0.2 %); LTN200, n=2 (0.4 %); no specific treatment-emergent SAE was reported in more than one patient. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, nausea, vertigo, and somnolence; the vast majority were mild or moderate in severity. The incidences of these TEAEs were highest during the first attack and decreased during subsequent attacks. For patients who experienced a common TEAE with the first attack, less than 45 % experienced the same event in subsequent attacks. Patients who did not experience an event in the 1st attack infrequently experienced the same event in subsequent attacks. The time of onset of the common TEAE ranged from ~40 min to 1 h (dependent upon TEAE) and, for individual TEAE, the onset was similar across attacks. Duration was dependent upon TEAE and attack. It was shortest for paresthesia (< 2 h for all attacks); it ranged from 1.8 to 5.5 h for other common TEAEs and was generally similar across attacks. Serotonin syndrome was reported for 2 patients post LTN dosing; there were no meaningful differences across treatment groups in suicidality; there was no evidence of an increase in motor vehicle accidents., Conclusion: In this blinded, controlled, multiple-attack study, LTN was associated with generally mild or moderate CNS-related TEAEs of short duration. TEAEs tended to decrease in frequency across the 4 attacks., Trial Registration: NCT03670810., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Migraine is characterized by severe, intermittent headache attacks with associated symptoms including nausea, vomiting, phonophobia, and photophobia. Still Triptans (selective 5-HT 1B/D agonists) are considered as the first-line therapy in acute attack of migraine. Recently two new drugs Lasmiditan and Ubrogepant were approved by United States Food and Drug Administration in acute attack of migraine with or without aura in adults. Lasmiditan is a highly selective 5-HT 1F receptor agonist which demonstrated superiority to placebo in the acute treatment of migraine in adults with moderate/severe migraine disability in two similarly designed phase-3 trials, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. Ubrogepant is a novel small molecule oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist. The approval was supported by two pivotal phase-3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II) that evaluated the efficacy, safety, tolerability. Hopefully, these two drugs may soon be a new addition to the mounting armory of drugs against migraine and may fulfill a substantial unmet need., Competing Interests: None

Introduction: Migraine is associated with considerable disability for patients not adequately managed with current standards of care. New acute therapies may offer relief for this population of patients; however, population size and associated potential costs of new therapies are unclear. In this study, a conceptual framework was developed to estimate anticipated use of new acute therapies., Methods: Targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies, and characteristics of individuals who would be eligible for new acute therapies. Findings from the TLR were combined to create a framework for estimating the size of the eligible patient population. This framework was used to calculate two estimates of the eligible patient population by applying parameters (i) identified in the TLR and (ii) from a recent budget-impact analysis (BIA)., Results: The primary factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies identified in the TLR were consulting a healthcare professional for headache, receiving a migraine diagnosis, and receiving a prescription for migraine-specific treatment. Characteristics of individuals likely to use new acute therapies reflected in the TLR were contraindication to triptans, or failure to respond to/tolerate at least two oral triptans. Application of the framework suggested that 15-25% of individuals with migraine would be eligible for new acute therapies., Conclusion: A limited number of patients currently use migraine-specific acute therapies. Among such patients, a significant proportion do not have adequate symptom control. Accordingly, a minority of individuals with migraine may be expected to use new acute therapies. The framework developed in this study is intended to facilitate estimating the eligible patient population in assessments of costs of new acute therapies. Such assessments should also consider recommendations that patients have access to multiple types of acute therapies, which may yield savings from reduced medication-overuse headache (MOH), progression to chronic migraine, and urgent-care costs., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Migraine is a leading cause of morbidity and disability worldwide. Triptans were the first migraine-specific drug class developed and have proven efficacy in treatment of this neurological disease. They are however contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular disease and possibly others, owning to their vasoconstrictive properties. This review will focus on lasmiditan, which has been called the first 'ditan' and 'neurally acting anti-migraine agent', designed to selectively agonize the serotonin 5-HT 1F receptor subtype, providing anti-migraine effects without concomitant vasoconstriction. To date, lasmiditan has proven safe and effective for the acute treatment of migraine in two Phase II and four Phase III trials. Post hoc analysis revealed that the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were CNS-related, mild-to-moderate in severity and self-limiting. The US FDA label recommends that patients not drive or operate machinery until at least 8 h after taking each dose of lasmiditan.

Background: While pain freedom at 2 h is a key primary outcome for current trials for acute treatment of migraine, the relationship between the degree of head pain and other efficacy measures at 2 h has rarely been explored. Following lasmiditan treatment of a migraine attack with moderate or severe head pain, we contrast those who achieve pain freedom with those who achieve mild pain but not pain freedom 2 h post dosing., Methods: Patient-level data were pooled across studies and treatment arms from two Phase 3 trials comparing lasmiditan and placebo, SAMURAI and SPARTAN. This post hoc analysis assessed freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS), freedom from migraine-related functional disability (disability), and improved patient global impression of change (PGIC) in patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom compared to those who experienced 2 h mild pain. Mild pain differs from pain relief which is defined as either mild pain or pain freedom., Results: Patients who achieved 2 h pain freedom (N = 913), in comparison with those with 2 h mild pain (N = 864), were significantly more likely to experience MBS freedom (91.9% vs. 44.9%), disability freedom (87.1% and 13.4%), and improved PGIC (86.5% and 31.5%) (p < 0.001 for all combinations). In addition, more patients who were pain free experienced both 2 h MBS freedom and 2 h functional disability freedom (83.6%) compared to those with mild pain (10.8%; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with pain freedom who did not achieve either MBS or disability freedom (4.6%) was lower than in patients with mild pain (52.4%). Lastly, 55.2% of patients experienced mild pain before disability freedom compared to 72.1% who experienced pain freedom and disability freedom at the same time., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that, at 2 h post treatment, patients who were pain free were more likely to achieve other outcomes including freedom from their MBS, freedom from migraine-related functional disability, and improved PGIC compared to those with mild pain, confirming that 2 h pain freedom is more robustly associated with other clinical outcomes than the 2 h mild pain endpoint., Trial Registration: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ); SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 )., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Limited information is available on acute treatments for migraine in elderly patients. Our objective was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of lasmiditan, a serotonin 1F agonist, for the acute treatment of migraine in elderly compared with nonelderly patients, with special emphasis on cardiovascular-related issues because cardiovascular comorbidities are more common in the elderly population., Methods: These post hoc analyses evaluated the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in elderly (≥65 years of age) versus nonelderly (<65 years of age) lasmiditan-treated patients. Two clinical trials entitled A Study of Two Doses of LAsMiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) Compared to Placebo in the AcUte Treatment of MigRAIne (SAMURAI) and A Study of Three Doses of Lasmiditan (50 mg, 100 mg and 200 mg) Compared to Placebo in the Acute TReaTment of MigrAiNe (SPARTAN) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III studies in adults (no upper age limit) who took placebo or lasmiditan 50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg for a single migraine attack within 4 hours of the onset of moderate or severe pain. Patients who completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN were eligible to enroll in An Open-label, LonG-term, Safety Study of LAsmiDItan (100 mg and 200 mg) in the Acute Treatment Of MigRaine (GLADIATOR), a Phase III, randomized, open-label, multiattack study of lasmiditan 100 or 200 mg. For pooled SAMURAI+SPARTAN data, treatment × age subgroup interactions were examined using logistic regression analyses. In addition, common cardiovascular event rates were assessed from GLADIATOR during 3 periods: treatment-emergent (<48 hours after dosing), intermediate (48 hours to 1 week after dosing), and remote (>1 week after dosing)., Findings: Of 3177 lasmiditan-treated patients in SAMURAI or SPARTAN, 132 (4.2%) were elderly, and of 1262 placebo-treated patients, 54 (4.3%) were elderly. Of 2030 lasmiditan-treated patients in GLADIATOR, 85 (4.2%) were elderly. The incidences of at least 1 TEAE with lasmiditan in nonelderly and elderly patients with migraine were 36% and 35% in pooled SAMURAI+SPARTAN, respectively, and 49% and 38% in GLADIATOR, respectively. No significant treatment × age subgroup interactions were observed in patients with ≥1 TEAE overall or for any individual TEAE in pooled SPARTAN+SAMURAI; however, numerical differences in the incidence of some specific TEAEs were seen. No treatment × age subgroup interactions and no tolerability concerns for individual TEAEs were detected. Cardiovascular TEAEs were much more frequent in the nonelderly population than the elderly population. Cardiovascular events were not reported in the elderly population during the treatment-emergent period or intermediate period. There were 2 cases of increased blood pressure in elderly patients during the remote period., Implications: The incidence of TEAEs was similar for elderly and nonelderly patients, and cardiovascular safety of lasmiditan was generally consistent with that in single-attack studies. No safety signals were observed with the limited number of patients in the elderly population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02565186 (GLADIATOR), NCT02439320 (SAMURAI), and NCT02605174 (SPARTAN)., (Copyright © 2021 Eli Lilly and Company. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of lasmiditan (LTN) in treating migraine attacks of mild vs. moderate or severe pain intensity., Methods: Pooled data from two single-attack, placebo-controlled studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT02605174]), and a prospective, randomized, open-label study (GLADIATOR [NCT02565186]) were assessed. Efficacy measures included the proportion of attacks with 2-h pain freedom (PF), 2-h most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, and 24-h sustained pain freedom (SPF). Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of PF, SPF, or MBS freedom outcomes among attacks treated at mild, moderate, or severe pain., Results: In SAMURAI and SPARTAN, most treated attacks were of moderate ( N  = 2768) or severe ( N  = 1147) intensity, compared to mild ( N  = 65). Numerically greater 2-h PF and 24-h SPF response rates were observed in attacks treated at mild compared to moderate or severe pain. Analysis of GLADIATOR data included 273 (1.5%), 11,644 (65.1%), and 5948 (33.3%) attacks treated when pain was mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. In general, a significantly greater proportion of attacks treated at mild pain achieved 2-h PF and MBS freedom, as well as 24-h SPF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events in LTN treatment groups were similar regardless of baseline head pain intensity., Conclusions: Data from two placebo-controlled, single-attack trials, and an open-label study including treatment of multiple attacks, suggested a tendency to relatively better efficacy outcomes when LTN treatment was initiated at mild vs. moderate to severe pain. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship of lasmiditan outcomes to the time of administration in the course of a migraine attack.

Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents-ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant-representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT 1F ) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura., Data Sources: The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144 ., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative., Data Synthesis: CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT 1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy., Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans., Conclusions: Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan's adverse effect profile may limit its use.

Introduction : Migraine is currently listed as the second cause of 'years lived with disability' and the sixth cause of global disability. Despite the burden associated to the disease, availability of specific drugs is still limited. Areas covered : The authors have evaluated lasmiditan, the first 'ditan' approved by the Food and Drugs Administration in 2019, from a global perspective: basic chemistry, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles, efficacy in migraine as a 5-HT 1F receptor selective agonist, tolerability and clinical safety, and impact on migraine-related disability. Our evaluation considered original papers and review articles published from 2010 to 2020. Expert opinion : Available data point to the efficacy of lasmiditan in reducing migraine pain and the most bothersome symptoms within 2 hours from oral administration. Moreover, lasmiditan has a positive effect on migraine-related disability. Its side effects mostly reflect an involvement of the central nervous system or the vestibular system, while cardiovascular side effects are rare and mild.Lasmiditan can be safely prescribed in patients who have failed non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs or triptans or with cardiovascular risk factors. Caution is advised in frequent users, due to lack of reliable data on its abuse potential. Further data are necessary to determine the usability of lasmiditan in particular populations, e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy.

Introduction : Migraine is one of the most common neurological disorders. Nowadays, the 5-HT 1B/1D receptor agonists, namely triptans, are considered as the standard of care for migraine acute treatment. However, triptans have limitations in some patients, such as incomplete pain relief, headache recurrence, and cardiovascular contraindications. New 5-HT 1F receptor agonists, namely ditans, and calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, namely gepants, have been developed as migraine-specific treatments. Areas covered : This paper reviews the available data from RCTs to assess the clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine and atogepant for the prevention of migraine. Expert opinion : Available data suggest that lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant might not have a clinical efficacy similar to triptans. Lasmiditan did not cause the typical triptan side effects but was associated with central nervous system side effects, causing temporary driving impairment. On the contrary, the new generation of gepants showed a placebo-like tolerability profile and the absence of a specific pattern of side effects. Future studies on lasmiditan and gepants with respect to established effective comparators are mandatory to support phase III results and to help clinicians to balance the benefit/risk profiles of the various acute and preventive medications.

Background : Lasmiditan is a selective serotonin (1F) receptor agonist approved for acute treatment of migraine with 3 doses: 50, 100, and 200 mg. Objective : To help provide dosing insights, we assessed the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in patients who treated two migraine attacks with the same or different lasmiditan doses. Methods : Integrated analyses used data from the migraine attack treated in either of two controlled, Phase 3, single attack studies (SAMURAI/SPARTAN), and after the first attack treated in the open-label GLADIATOR extension study. Eight patient groups were created based on the initial dose received in SAMURAI or SPARTAN and the subsequent dose in GLADIATOR: placebo-100, placebo-200, 50-100, 50-200, 100-100, 100-200, 200-100, 200-200. Migraine pain freedom, migraine-related functional disability freedom, most bothersome symptom (MBS) freedom, and pain relief were evaluated at 2-h post-dose. The occurrence of most common treatment-emergent adverse events (MC-TEAE) was evaluated. Shift analyses were performed for pain freedom and ≥1 MC-TEAE. The incidence of patients with a specific outcome from the first and subsequent doses were compared within each dose change group using McNemar's test. Results : Small, but consistent, increases in incidences of pain freedom, migraine-related functional disability freedom, MBS freedom, and pain relief occurred when the second lasmiditan dose was higher than the initial dose. For patients starting on 50 mg, increasing to 100 or 200 mg provided a positive efficacy-TEAE balance, despite an increase in incidence of ≥1 MC-TEAE. For patients starting on 100 mg, increasing to 200 mg provided a positive efficacy-TEAE balance. If the initial dose was 100 or 200 mg, the incidence of patients experiencing ≥1 MC-TEAE decreased or stayed the same with their subsequent dose, regardless of dose. Decreasing from 200 to 100 mg led to a decrease in patients with pain freedom and ≥1 MC-TEAE, resulting in a neutral efficacy-TEAE balance. Shift analyses supported these findings. Conclusion : A positive efficacy-TEAE balance exists for patients increasing their lasmiditan dose for treatment of a subsequent migraine attack. These results could be important for optimizing dosing for individual patients.Clinicaltrials.gov: SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174); GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in Japanese adults with migraine., Background: Global clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study in Japan (NCT03962738), which enrolled adults with migraine with or without aura. Participants were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg to be self-administered orally within 4 h of onset of a single moderate-to-severe migraine attack. Participants recorded their response to treatment prior to dosing and for 48 h postdose. The primary endpoint was headache pain freedom at 2 h postdose., Results: Participants (N = 846) were randomized and treated (N = 691, safety; N = 682, modified intent-to-treat). At 2 h postdose, a significantly higher proportion of participants were headache pain-free in the lasmiditan 200 mg (40.8%, 73/179; odds ratio 3.46 [95% confidence interval 2.17 to 5.54]; p < 0.001; primary objective) and 100 mg groups (32.4%, 67/207; odds ratio 2.41 [1.51 to 3.83]; p < 0.001) compared with the placebo group (16.6%, 35/211), whereas the lasmiditan 50 mg group had a numerically higher proportion of participants headache pain-free (23.5%, 20/85; odds ratio 1.55 [0.83 to 2.87]; p = 0.167) compared with placebo. A statistically significant linear dose-response relationship for pain freedom was achieved at 2 h by a Cochran-Armitage trend test (p < 0.001). Lasmiditan treatment was also associated with headache pain relief, most bothersome symptom freedom, and improvement on disability and Patient Global Impression of Change outcomes. The majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were mild and of short duration, the most common of which were dizziness (39.4%; 188/477), somnolence (19.3%; 92/477), and malaise (10.5%; 50/477) in all lasmiditan groups, with no serious adverse events reported., Conclusions: Lasmiditan was well tolerated and effective for the acute treatment of Japanese patients with migraine, consistent with global phase 3 studies., (© 2021 Eli Lilly Japan K.K. The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Headache Societ.)

Purpose: This narrative review provides an update on the research that led to the development of ditans and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in adults and discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of lasmiditan in clinical use., Methods: The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception through January 9, 2021, to identify relevant studies. Search results were assessed for their overall relevance to this review., Findings: Because part of the effect of the triptans is mediated by the serotonin 1F receptors, which are not present in the smooth muscle, a pure agonist of these receptors, lasmiditan, was developed. Lasmiditan is hypothesized to act on antinociceptive pathways and inhibit the calcitonin gene-related peptide release. Lasmiditan was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on the results of 2 pivotal trials that found a significant difference from placebo in the percentage of patients who achieved freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom at 2 h. The main concern of lasmiditan derives from its central nervous system-related adverse effects, mainly dizziness and paraesthesia, probably attributable to its high blood brain barrier penetration. These central nervous system adverse effects impair driving performance for hours and might be suboptimal for individuals with migraine who want to quickly stop the migraine attack to resume their activities as soon as possible., Implications: Despite the advantage of being beneficial in the acute treatment of migraine without vasocostrictive action, lasmiditan also presents limitations, in particular the central nervous system adverse effects. Moreover, head-to-head trials against triptans and gepants are indispensable to determine the better option for patients., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups - lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity., Results: Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg ( p  < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity., Conclusions: These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks. Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810.

Background: While understanding the pathophysiology of migraine has led to CGRP-based treatments, other potential targets have also been implicated in migraine., Objectives: To catalog new promising targets for the treatment of migraine., Methods: We completed a literature review focusing on 5HT 1F , PACAP, melatonin, and orexins., Results: The 5HT 1F receptor agonist lasmiditan, following two positive randomized placebo-controlled trials, was FDA-approved for the acute treatment of migraine. PACAP-38 has shown analogous evidence to what was obtained for CGRP with its localization in key structures, provocation tests, and positive studies when antagonizing its receptor in animal models, although a PAC-1 receptor monoclonal antibody study was negative. Melatonin has undergone several randomized controlled trials showing a positive trend. Filorexant is the only dual orexin receptor antagonist, which was tested in humans with negative results., Conclusions: Further and ongoing studies will determine the utility of these new therapies with lasmiditan and melatonin having demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of migraine., Competing Interests: None

Background: An acute attack of migraine, incapacitates the migraineurs, and is widely prevalent. And to warden off its symptoms, recently two groups of drugs have been approved and launched., Objective: The aim of this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis is to evaluate and summarize the effectiveness of these pharmacological interventions in managing the aforesaid disease., Material and Methods: An extensive literature search was done through Cochrane library, Pub Med, clincialtrials.gov, for a period of 5 years (2015-2020), using key words: lasmiditan; ubrogepant; rimegepant; and acute migraine. Randomized double-blind phase III clinical trials, published in English language, were included which explored the efficacy and safety of these drugs. The outcomes of this meta-analysis included proportion of patients' headache, most bothersome symptoms free, and no disability at all at 2 h post-dose, with sustained pain freedom 2-24 h, and experiencing any adverse event. An indirect network meta-analysis was also conducted to determine the comparative effectiveness of these drugs., Results: A total of seven RCTs involving 7266 patients were included. In general, the new drugs demonstrated better result in all the efficacy parameters. The adverse events were observed in treatment group compared to placebo. While in the indirect comparison, lasmiditan emerged to be superior in all the outcomes, except for sustained pain freedom 2-24 h (rimegepant was better). The adverse events were more with lasmiditan., Conclusion: All the newer drugs have shown significant improvement in the outcomes analyzed. Lasmiditan appears to be superior among the newer drugs in efficacy; however it has more adverse effects., Competing Interests: None

Background: Migraine patients want acute treatment to provide complete relief of the migraine attack within 30 minutes. Traditionally, "speed of onset of effect" is evaluated by estimating the time-point for first statistical separation of drug and placebo. The estimated onset of effect can be a few percent difference of patients being pain free in very large randomised, controlled trials. This difference, however, can be clinically irrelevant., Methods: Placebo-controlled randomised, controlled trials with pain freedom results from 30 min to 2-4 hours were retrieved from the literature. For each time-point, the therapeutic gain (drug minus placebo) (TG) was calculated. Therapeutic gain for being pain free of 5% was chosen for the definition of "onset of action", since this is approximately 1/3 of the 16% TG and 1/4 of 21% of TG for sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg, respectively., Results: A total of 22 time-effect curves based on randomised, controlled trials were analysed. Based on the "onset of action" of 5% pain freedom, the evaluated drugs and administration forms can be classified as follows: i) Early time to onset, ≤30 min (three randomised, controlled trials); ii) medium time to onset, 60 min (nine randomised, controlled trials); iii) delayed time to onset, 90-120 min (10 randomised, controlled trials)., Conclusion: Only three non-oral administration forms with a triptan (subcutaneous sumatriptan and nasal zolmitriptan) resulted in an "onset of action" at ≥30 min; in the future, early onset of action should be a priority in the development of new drugs or new administration-forms for the treatment of acute migraine attacks.

Introduction: Migraine patients prioritize early complete relief of headache and associated symptoms, sustained freedom of pain, and good tolerability. One major obstacle for the successful use of drug treatment of migraine attack is that the speed of action of triptans, 5-HT 1B/1D receptor agonists, is delayed., Areas Covered: In this review, the author discusses the following features of acute migraine drugs: pharmacology; pharmacokinetics, and absorption of drugs during migraine attacks. Next, dose-response curves for effect; and the delayed onset of action is reviewed. In the more clinical part of the review, the following items are discussed: overall clinical judgments; comparison of triptans; comparison of triptans with NSAIDs; early intervention with triptans; medication-overuse headache; comments on the effect of gepants; and the general principle of acute migraine therapy., Expert Opinion: The delay in the onset of effect of acute migraine drugs is likely due to a complex antimigraine system involving more than one site of action. Investigations into the mechanisms of the delay should have a high priority, both in studies with animals, migraine models, and in migraine patients during attacks. Non-oral administration of antimigraine drugs resulting in early absorption of drugs should be developed as they possibly also can increase E max .

Objective: To identify factors predicting response (2-hour headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom) to lasmiditan based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. Further, efficacy specifically in difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics or attack characteristics (ie, historically considered less responsive to certain acute therapies) subgroups was analyzed., Background: Knowledge of factors associated with a positive or negative response to acute treatment would be useful to practitioners prescribing acute treatments for migraine. Additionally, practitioners and patients would benefit from understanding the efficacy of lasmiditan specifically in subgroups of patients with migraine disease characteristics and migraine attack characteristics historically associated with decreased pain threshold, reduced efficacy of acute treatment, or increased burden of migraine., Methods: Pooled analyses were completed from 2 Phase 3 double-blind clinical trials, SPARTAN and SAMURAI. Data from baseline to 2 hours after taking lasmiditan (50, 100, or 200 mg) or placebo were analyzed to assess efficacy based on patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, and migraine attack characteristics. A total of 3981 patients comprising the intent-to-treat population were treated with placebo (N = 1130), lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 598), lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1133), or lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1120). Data were analyzed for the following efficacy measures at 2 hours: headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom., Results: None of the analyzed subgroups based on individual patient characteristics, migraine disease characteristics, or migraine attack characteristics predicted headache pain freedom or most bothersome symptom freedom response at 2 hours following lasmiditan treatment (interaction P ≥ .1). For the difficult-to-treat patient/migraine disease characteristics subgroups (defined as those with ≥24 headache days in the past 3 months, duration of migraine history ≥20 years, severe disability [Migraine Disability Assessment score ≥21], obesity [≥30 kg/m 2 ], and history of psychiatric disorder), single doses of lasmiditan (100 or 200 mg) were significantly more effective than placebo (P ≤ .002) in achieving both endpoints. Headache pain freedom response rates for higher doses of lasmiditan were numerically greater than for lower doses of lasmiditan. For the difficult-to-treat migraine attack subgroups, patients with severe headache, co-existent nausea at the time of treatment, or who delayed treatment for ≥2 hours from the time of headache onset, both endpoint response rates after lasmiditan 100 or 200 mg were significantly greater than after placebo. Among those who delayed treatment for ≥4 hours from the time of headache onset, headache pain freedom response rates for the 200 mg dose of lasmiditan met statistical significance vs placebo (32.4% vs 15.9%; odds ratio = 2.7 [1.17, 6.07]; P = .018). While the predictors of response interaction test showed similar efficacy of lasmiditan vs placebo across subgroups defined by baseline functional disability (mild, moderate, or needs complete bed rest) at the time of treatment, analyses of lasmiditan efficacy within the subgroup "needs complete bed rest" appeared to show less efficacy (eg, in the 200 mg vs placebo group, 25.9% vs 18.5%; odds ratio = 1.56 [0.96, 2.53]; P = .070)., Conclusions: Efficacy of lasmiditan 200 and 100 mg for headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 hours post-treatment was generally not influenced by the individual patient characteristics, migraine disease history, or migraine attack characteristics that were analyzed. In the analyses of difficult-to-treat subgroups, patients receiving lasmiditan achieved greater responses (2-hour headache pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom) vs placebo recipients., (© 2020 Eli Lilly and Company. Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain published by Wiley Periodicals LLC, on behalf of American Headache Society.)