Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

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

The Journal of Headache and Pain volume 25, Article number: 57 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

Eligible participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a ≥ 1-year history of migraine, with 2 to 8 attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity per month and < 15 headache days per month during the 3 months before screening. Participants self-administered rimegepant ODT 75 mg or matching placebo to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 h post-dose. Key secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 h post-dose, ability to function normally at 2 h post-dose, use of rescue medication within 24 h post-dose, and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h and 2 to 48 h post-dose. All p values were nominal. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms, vital signs, and routine laboratory tests.

Results

Overall, 1075 participants (rimegepant, n = 538; placebo, n = 537) were included in the subgroup analysis. Rimegepant was more effective than placebo for the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom (18.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0004) and freedom from the MBS (48.0% vs. 31.8%, p <  0.0001), as well as all key secondary endpoints. The incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the rimegepant (15.2%) and placebo (16.4%) groups. No signal of drug-induced liver injury was observed, and no study drug-related serious TEAEs were reported in the rimegepant group.

Conclusions

A single dose of rimegepant 75 mg rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China, with safety and tolerability similar to placebo.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04574362 Date registered: 2020-10-05.

Graphical Abstract

Peer Review reports

Background

Migraine is characterized by episodic, throbbing, moderate-to-severe headache pain that is typically accompanied by additional symptoms such as photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea or vomiting [1]. Migraine is among the most prevalent and disabling disorders globally and can negatively impact patient activity, social interaction, workplace productivity, and overall quality of life [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. Despite being a global concern, the quality of migraine care varies across countries due to discrepancies in provider education and resources, access to treatment, cost of treatment, and other socioeconomic factors [10, 11].

Migraine affects approximately 151.6 million people in China [3]. However, migraine is generally under-recognized in China, with misdiagnosis a key concern [12, 13]. Roughly half of people with migraine in China do not seek medical attention and treat migraine attacks with over-the-counter medication such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) [14, 15]. Those seeking medical consultation will typically be treated by primary care physicians, rather than neurologists/specialists, and there are few headache centers in China [15, 16]. Although migraine treatment guidelines in China are generally consistent with those of Western countries, the concept of migraine prevention is not well adopted in China and use of preventive medications is low, even in headache clinics [12, 13, 16]. This may be related to the overall low diagnosis rate of migraine in China and that most prophylactic treatments are not officially approved (or reimbursed) for an indication of preventive treatment of migraine in China.

Guidelines for the acute treatment of migraine in China recommend NSAIDs, acetaminophen, caffeinated analgesic compounds, triptans, lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant [17]. Based on a retrospective analysis of medical insurance claims among adult participants with migraine (n = 10652) in China, only 26.4% (n = 2813) of participants received an acute medication prescribed for migraine or pain relief [16]. Among these 2813 participants, the most commonly prescribed medications were non-aspirin NSAIDs (68.8%), followed by aspirin (8.0%), opioids (7.1%), ergot alkaloids (6.1%), and acetaminophen (4.3%) [16]. Notably, only 3.3% of participants were prescribed triptans, which are recommended for acute treatment of migraine in guidelines from China (and other countries) and are commonly prescribed acute treatments in the United States and the European Union [16, 18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Unlike Western countries, Chinese patent and herbal medicines are also commonly used to treat migraine in China [16, 25].

Some of the acute therapies described above have limitations. Triptans and NSAIDs, for example, are contraindicated in participants with cardiovascular disease and/or their use is cautioned in those with cardiovascular risk factors [26, 27]. Additionally, NSAIDS, triptans, ergot alkaloids, and combination analgesics are associated with a risk of medication overuse headache (MOH) [1, 28]. MOH is a concern in China as it is has a significant impact on patient quality of life, is often undiagnosed, or is erroneously considered as worsening of migraine [29]. In a retrospective study of 1453 adults with migraine at a headache treatment center in China, 6.5% (n = 240) met diagnostic criteria for MOH [29]. Finally, many patients respond poorly to these acute therapies; studies in China estimate that more than 40% of patients have insufficient response to acute treatment [8, 30]. Insufficient response can lead to dissatisfaction with treatment and is a risk factor for transformation of episodic migraine to chronic migraine [31]. Thus, there is a clear unmet need in China for safe and effective acute treatments for migraine [8, 30, 32].

A key role for calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been established in the pathophysiology of migraine, with several agents that target CGRP signaling approved for migraine treatment in the United States and European Union [33]. Despite guidelines in China recommending the use of CGRP receptor antagonists for acute treatment of migraine, ubrogepant is not currently approved and rimegepant was only recently approved in China (January 2024) and not yet eligible for reimbursement [17, 34]. Rimegepant is indicated for acute treatment of migraine and for preventive treatment of episodic migraine in the United States, European Union, and United Kingdom [35, 36]. The efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine was initially established in three pivotal, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical trials and an open-label, long-term (1 year) Phase 2/3 safety trial conducted in the United States [37,38,39,40]. A subsequent randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial with the rimegepant 75 mg orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) formulation for acute treatment of migraine demonstrated efficacy and safety in adults living in China or South Korea (NCT04574362), and was the first clinical trial of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine conducted outside the United States [41]. In Chinese and Korean adults, rimegepant was superior to placebo on all primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints, with safety and tolerability comparable to placebo [41].

It is possible that response to rimegepant could vary among Korean and Chinese participants due to differences in demographics, approach/access to migraine treatment, and other social or cultural factors. Additionally, there is a lack of data on the use of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine specifically in Chinese adults. Therefore, we conducted a subgroup analysis (based on previous trial NCT04574362 in Korean and Chinese participants) to assess the efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg in adults with migraine who live in China.

Methods

Study design and eligibility criteria

Full study methods and details on ethical oversight have been published previously [41]. Briefly, the study (NCT04574362) was comprised of a 3 to 28-day screening period, an acute treatment phase lasting up to 45 days or until the participant had a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity, and an end of treatment visit within 7 days after the administration of study medication (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study design. ODT, orally disintegrating tablet

Full size image

Key inclusion criteria included: age ≥ 18 years; a ≥ 1-year history of headache consistent with a diagnosis of migraine (with or without aura) according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders 3rd Edition (beta version) [42]; and 2 to 8 attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity per month, with migraine attacks that last an average of 4 to 72 h if untreated, and < 15 headache days per month during the 3 months before screening. Participants with a history of migraine with brainstem aura or hemiplegic migraine were excluded. Participants with contraindications to triptans were eligible if they met all other entry criteria. Participants on preventive migraine medication were permitted to remain on preventive therapy provided dosing was stable for ≥3 months prior to screening. Participants who have previously participated in studies of investigational CGRP-antagonists (small molecule or biologic) or have been prescribed CGRP-antibodies within the last 6 months were excluded.

Treatment

Participants meeting eligibility criteria were randomized, in a double-blind manner via the sponsor’s Interactive Web Response System, in a 1:1 ratio to either rimegepant ODT 75 mg or matching placebo treatment. Randomization was stratified by country (China and South Korea) and use of preventive medication (yes vs. no). Upon randomization, participants were provided a single dose of study medication to treat (via self-administration) a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity within 45 days.

All other headache medications were prohibited for 2 h post-dosing of study medication. Participants who did not experience pain relief 2 h post-dose (or if the migraine that was relieved at 2 h returned to a moderate or severe pain intensity between 2 and 48 h) were permitted to use the following rescue medications: aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen up to 1000 mg/day, NSAIDs, antiemetics, or baclofen. If needed, participants could take prescribed standard-of-care migraine treatments 48 h after dosing of study medication. Use of rescue medication was recorded by the participant in a paper diary.

Efficacy assessments

Participants recorded efficacy data in an Electronic Diary, including the time of headache onset, pain intensity, the presence or absence of associated migraine symptoms, and ratings of functional disability. A 4-point numeric rating scale was used to rate pain severity (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and functional disability (0 = normal, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = severely impaired, 3 = requires bedrest). The presence of associated migraine symptoms (nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia) was assessed using a binary scale (0 = absent, 1 = present) and participants were asked to identify, prior to dosing, their most bothersome symptom (MBS), selected among nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia. Assessments of pain severity, presence of associated migraine symptoms, and functional disability were performed immediately prior to dosing and at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 60 min, 90 min, 2 h, 3 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 24 h, and 48 h after dosing.

Pain freedom and freedom from the MBS were defined as a score of 0 on the respective numeric rating scales. Pain relief was defined as a score of 0 or 1 on the pain rating scale.

Efficacy endpoints

The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of participants with pain freedom at 2 h post-dose and the proportion of participants with freedom from the MBS at 2 h post-dose. Key secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants with pain relief at 2 hours post-dose, the proportion of participants with normal function at 2 h post-dose (among participants with any level of disability prior to taking study medication), the proportion of participants using rescue medication within 24 h post-dose, the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h post-dose, and the proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 h post-dose.

Other secondary or exploratory endpoints included the proportion of participants with pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 60 min, 90 min, 3 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 24 h, and 48 h post-dose. The proportion of participants who had pain relapse (pain severity score of 1, 2, or 3) at any point from 2 to 48 h post-dose was also assessed among those with pain freedom at 2 h post-dose.

Safety assessments

Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms (ECG), vital signs, physical examinations, and routine laboratory tests. TEAEs were defined as those with onset date on or after the study medication date. TEAEs were summarized descriptively, with severity and relationship to study treatment determined by site investigators. TEAEs were coded using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities v23.0.

Statistical considerations

All analyses were conducted in the subgroup of Chinese participants. Analysis of the co-primary endpoint and key secondary efficacy endpoints in this subgroup were pre-specified in the statistical analysis plan, whereas analyses of the other secondary efficacy endpoints in this subgroup were post hoc. Efficacy was analyzed in all randomized Chinese participants who received study medication, had a migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity at the time of dosing, and provided at least one efficacy datapoint after receiving study treatment. Safety was assessed in all Chinese participants who received study treatment.

Rimegepant was compared with placebo at a two-sided alpha level of 0.05 for the co-primary and secondary efficacy endpoints using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests stratified by use of preventive migraine medication. Statistical analyses in the Chinese subgroup did not control for Type 1 error and all p values were nominal. For the endpoints of pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function, participant data were imputed as failures if there were missing data at the time point being assessed or participants used rescue medication at or before the time point being assessed (participants not reporting a MBS at migraine onset were also imputes as failures in the MBS freedom analysis). For the endpoint of sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h, participant data were imputed as failures if there were missing data at 2 or 24 h, had missing data at > 1 other time point (3, 4, 6, or 8 h), or used rescue medication at or before 24 h. For the endpoint of sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 h, participant data were imputed as failures if there were missing data at 2, 24, or 48 h, had missing data at > 1 other time point (3, 4, 6, and 8 h), or used rescue medication at or before 48 h. For the endpoint of pain relapse, participant data were imputed as failures (i.e., had pain relapse) if participants had missing data at 24 or 48 h, had missing data at > 1 time point, or if they used rescue medication from 2 to 48 h. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Participants

A total of 1075 Chinese participants (rimegepant, n = 538; placebo, n = 537) received study treatment. Demographics and clinical characteristics for all treated Chinese participants are shown in Table 1. These participants had a median age of 35 (range, 18–71) years and a majority (79.0%) were female. The median (range) number of moderate or severe migraine attacks per month was 3 (2–8), and nausea was the most frequently reported historical MBS (52.0%). Preventive migraine medications were used by 3.5% of the Chinese study population.

Table 1 Demographics and clinical characteristics in all Chinese participants receiving study treatment
Full size table

Efficacy

At 2 h post-dose, rimegepant was more effective than placebo on the co-primary endpoints of freedom from pain (18.2% vs. 10.6%; risk difference = 7.6; p = 0.0004) and freedom from the MBS (48.0% vs. 31.8%; risk difference = 16.2; p <  0.0001) (Table 2).

Table 2 Summary of co-primary and key secondary endpointsa
Full size table

Rimegepant was also more effective than placebo on all key secondary endpoints (Table 2), including pain relief at 2 h post-dose (65.4% vs. 47.7%; p <  0.0001), normal function at 2 h post-dose (38.5% vs. 23.8%; p <  0.0001), the use of rescue medication within 24 h post-dose (5.2% vs. 14.0%; p <  0.0001), sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h post-dose (15.3% vs. 8.0%; p = 0.0002), and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 48 h post-dose (14.5% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.0001).

The time-course of pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function from 15 min to 48 h post-dose is shown in Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 1. Rimegepant demonstrated improvements over placebo (p <  0.05) as early as 90 min post-dose for pain freedom, 60 min for MBS freedom, 45 min for pain relief, and 60 min for normal function. For each of these endpoints, improvements over placebo (p <  0.05) were maintained at all subsequent time points through 48 h post-dose. Among participants with pain freedom at 2 h post-dose, 20.4% had pain relapse up to 48 h in the rimegepant group compared with 31.6% in the placebo group (p = 0.1382).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Time-course of the proportion of participants with pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function from 15 minutes to 48 hours post-dose. Assessments were made at 15 min, 30 min, 45 min, 1 h, 1.5 h, 2 h, 3 h, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 24 h, and 48 h post-dose. Participants with missing data at the time point being assessed or who used rescue medication at or before the time point being assessed were imputed as failures (participants not reporting a MBS at migraine onset were imputed as failures in the MBS freedom analysis). *Nominal p <  0.05; based on the risk difference (rimegepant ODT vs. placebo). MBS, most bothersome symptom; ODT, orally disintegrating tablet

Full size image

Safety

The overall rate of TEAEs was 15.2% in the rimegepant group and 16.4% in the placebo group (Table 3). Rates of the most frequently reported TEAEs (those reported in ≥0.5% of rimegepant-treated participants) were comparable between treatment groups. Of these TEAEs, only protein urine present (rimegepant, 1.5%; placebo, 1.3%) and nausea (rimegepant, 1.1%; placebo, 2.6%) were reported in ≥1% of the rimegepant group.

Table 3 Summary of treatment-emergent adverse events in all treated Chinese participants
Full size table

Serious TEAEs occurred in 1 (0.2%) participant in the rimegepant group and 2 (0.4%) in the placebo group. Study drug-related serious TEAEs occurred in no participants in the rimegepant group and 1 (0.2%) in the placebo group. The overall rate of study drug–related TEAEs was 8.4% with rimegepant treatment and 8.0% with placebo.

No deaths were reported and no clinically meaningful changes in ECGs, vital signs, physical examination results, or routine laboratory tests were observed in either treatment group. There were no participants with alanine transaminase or aspartate aminotransferase concentrations >3x the upper limit of normal and concurrent concentrations of total bilirubin >2x the upper limit of normal.

Discussion

A previous randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial demonstrated efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adults from China or South Korea and confirmed that findings from US-based populations can be generalized to Chinese and Korean populations [41]. However, there is a lack of data on the use of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine specifically in Chinese adults. Therefore, we conducted a subgroup analysis, based on the previous trial in Korean and Chinese participants, to assess the efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg in adults with migraine living in China. In this subgroup of Chinese adults, rimegepant was more effective than placebo on all co-primary and key secondary efficacy endpoints and demonstrated a TEAE profile comparable to placebo. These subgroup results mirror findings observed in the overall study population [41] and confirm rimegepant is effective as an acute treatment of migraine in Chinese adults.

Specifically, in Chinese participants in this study, rimegepant was associated with improvements over placebo for the co-primary efficacy endpoints of freedom from pain and freedom from the MBS at 2 h post-dose. Rimegepant also demonstrated improvement over placebo on the endpoints of pain relief and return to normal function at 2 h post-dose. Additionally, fewer participants in the rimegepant group required rescue medication through 24 h post-dose compared with the placebo group. Improvements over placebo were observed at 45 min post-dose for the endpoint of pain relief, 60 min for the endpoints of normal function and MBS freedom, and 90 min for pain freedom. These improvements for pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function were observed at all subsequent assessments through 48 h post-dose, which suggests a sustained effect of rimegepant in many participants. This is further supported by the observation that the rimegepant group had a greater proportion of participants with sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h and from 2 to 48 h post-dose compared with the placebo group. Overall, these findings in Chinese participants are consistent with findings from previous US-based studies of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine, where improvements over placebo were demonstrated for pain freedom, MBS freedom, pain relief, and normal function at 2 h post-dose, for use of rescue medication through 24 h post-dose, and for sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 and 2 to 48 h post-dose [37, 38, 40].

The safety findings observed in Chinese participants are also consistent with previous US-based trials of rimegepant since rimegepant demonstrated an overall safety profile comparable to placebo [37, 38, 40]. In the subgroup of Chinese participants, no treatment-related serious TEAEs were reported in the rimegepant group, a majority of TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity, most TEAEs resolved without treatment, TEAEs occurred at a similar rate in the rimegepant and placebo groups, there were no clinically meaningful changes in ECGs or routine laboratory tests observed, and there was no signal of hepatotoxicity.

The evidence for efficacy and a favorable safety profile of rimegepant demonstrated in this subgroup analysis suggests rimegepant may help address an unmet need for safe and effective acute treatment of migraine in China. Guidelines for acute treatment of migraine in China recommend NSAIDs, which are the most commonly prescribed acute medication for migraine in China [43]. However, NSAIDs may not be effective against migraine attacks of severe pain intensity [18, 44] and long-term use of these agents is associated with gastrointestinal bleeding, cardiovascular thrombotic events, and renal damage [45,46,47]. As a result, use of these agents is cautioned in patients with or at risk for gastrointestinal events, cardiovascular disease, or renal impairment [27]. Triptans are also recommended by Chinese treatment guidelines, but are not commonly utilized in China [16, 43]. This may be due to a variety of factors, including cost, access, and that triptans are contraindicated for patients with cardiovascular disease due to their vasoconstrictive properties [26]. NSAIDs, triptans, and other acute migraine treatments also carry a risk of MOH [28]. In contrast, rimegepant, like other gepant medications (i.e., zavegepant, ubrogepant) is not associated with MOH [48]. For example, scheduled every other day dosing of rimegepant for 12 weeks for preventive treatment of migraine resulted in significant reduction of monthly migraine days compared to placebo without evidence of MOH [49]. Additionally, real-word evidence shows that use of rimegepant for migraine therapy reduces both the point prevalence of MOH and the requirement for certain medications that can cause MOH, including barbiturates and opioids [50,51,52].

Though the exact mechanism underlying MOH is not known, it is thought to involve changes in descending pain modulation, sensitization of nociceptors, other structural and function alterations in the nervous system, and, possibly, biobehavioral factors [53, 54]. Repeated administration of gepants has not been associated with sensory changes suggestive of MOH in preclinical models of medication overuse [55, 56].

Although rimegepant demonstrated efficacy and a favorable safety profile for acute treatment of migraine in this study, the study was designed to assess the effects of a single dose of rimegepant and, as a result, does not allow for conclusions on the efficacy or safety of repeated long-term use of rimegepant in Chinese adults. Additional ongoing studies (NCT05371652, NCT05810038) will assess the long-term use of rimegepant in Chinese populations. In addition, statistical analyses in the current subgroup analysis of Chinese participants did not control for type 1 error and all p values were nominal.

Overall, this study demonstrated that a single dose of rimegepant ODT 75 mg is effective and well tolerated for acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China. These results indicate that use of rimegepant could, potentially, help address an unmet need for safe and effective acute treatments of migraine in the People’s Republic of China. This conclusion is supported by guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of migraine in China, which strongly recommends rimegepant as acute therapy based on high level evidence of efficacy and favorable safety profile established across multiple randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials [17].

Availability of data and materials

Upon request, and subject to review, Pfizer will provide the data that support the findings of this study. Pursuant to certain criteria, conditions, and exceptions, Pfizer may also provide access to the related individual de-identified participant data. For more information, go to https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/trial-data-and-results.

Abbreviations

CGRP:

Calcitonin gene-related peptide

ECG:

Electrocardiogram

MBS:

Most bothersome symptom

MOH:

Medication overuse headache

NSAID:

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug

ODT:

Orally disintegrating tablet

TEAE:

Treatment-emergent adverse event

References

  1. Headache classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2018) The international classification of headache disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 38:1–211. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102417738202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet 390:1211–1259. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2

  3. Yao C, Wang Y, Wang L, Liu Y, Liu J, Qi J et al (2019) Burden of headache disorders in China, 1990-2017: findings from the global burden of disease study 2017. J Headache Pain 20:102. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-019-1048-2

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Abu Bakar N, Tanprawate S, Lambru G, Torkamani M, Jahanshahi M, Matharu M (2016) Quality of life in primary headache disorders: a review. Cephalalgia 36:67–91. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102415580099

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blumenfeld A, Varon S, Wilcox T, Buse D, Kawata A, Manack A et al (2011) Disability, HRQoL and resource use among chronic and episodic migraineurs: results from the international burden of migraine study (IBMS). Cephalalgia 31:301–315. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102410381145

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shimizu T, Sakai F, Miyake H, Sone T, Sato M, Tanabe S et al (2021) Disability, quality of life, productivity impairment and employer costs of migraine in the workplace. J Headache Pain 22:29. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-021-01243-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Buse DC, Nahas SJ, Stewart WBF, Armand CE, Reed ML, Fanning KM et al (2023) Optimized acute treatment of migraine is associated with greater productivity in people with migraine: results from the chronic migraine epidemiology and outcomes (CaMEO) study. J Occup Environ Med 65:e261–e268. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1097/jom.0000000000002801

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhao H, Xiao Z, Zhang L, Ford J, Zhong S, Ye W et al (2023) Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes among patients with episodic migraine in China: results from the Adelphi migraine disease specific Programme™. J Pain Res 16:357–371. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.2147/jpr.S371887

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang X, Xing Y, Sun J, Zhou H, Yu H, Zhao Y et al (2016) Prevalence, associated factors, and impact on quality of life of migraine in a Community in Northeast China. J Oral Facial Pain Headache 30:139–149. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.11607/ofph.1584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Raffaelli B, Rubio-Beltrán E, Cho SJ, De Icco R, Labastida-Ramirez A, Onan D et al (2023) Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2. J Headache Pain 24:167. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-023-01699-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Martelletti P, Leonardi M, Ashina M, Burstein R, Cho SJ, Charway-Felli A et al (2023) Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030. J Headache Pain 24:140. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-023-01666-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Li X, Zhou J, Tan G, Wang Y, Ran L, Chen L (2012) Diagnosis and treatment status of migraine: a clinic-based study in China. J Neurol Sci 315:89–92. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.jns.2011.11.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Liu H, Dong M, Liu K, Jia Z, Gui W, Cheng Y et al (2023) Status of diagnosis and preventative treatment for primary headache disorders: real-world data of unmet needs in China. J Headache Pain 24:119. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-023-01654-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yu S, Zhang M, Zhou J, Liu R, Wan Q, Li Y (2014) Headache care in China. Headache 54:601–609. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/head.12330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liu R, Yu S, He M, Zhao G, Yang X, Qiao X et al (2013) Health-care utilization for primary headache disorders in China: a population-based door-to-door survey. J Headache Pain 14:47. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/1129-2377-14-47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu S, Zhang Y, Yao Y, Cao H (2020) Migraine treatment and healthcare costs: retrospective analysis of the China health insurance research association (CHIRA) database. J Headache Pain 21:53. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-020-01117-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chinese Medical Association Group (2022) Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Migraine in China (2022 Edition). Chin J Pain Med 28:881–898

  18. Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS, on behalf of the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society (2021) The American headache society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 61:1021–1039. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/head.14153

  19. Evers S, Afra J, Frese A, Goadsby PJ, Linde M, May A et al (2009) EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine--revised report of an EFNS task force. Eur J Neurol 16:968–981. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02748.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Marmura MJ, Silberstein SD, Schwedt TJ (2015) The acute treatment of migraine in adults: the american headache society evidence assessment of migraine pharmacotherapies. Headache. 55:3–20. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/head.12499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchinson S, Lipton RB, Ailani J, Reed ML, Fanning KM, Adams AM et al (2020) Characterization of acute prescription migraine medication use: results from the CaMEO study. Mayo Clin Proc 95:709–718. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.11.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lipton RB, Munjal S, Alam A, Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML et al (2018) Migraine in America symptoms and treatment (MAST) study: baseline study methods, treatment patterns, and gender differences. Headache. 58:1408–1426. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/head.13407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roessler T, Zschocke J, Roehrig A, Friedrichs M, Friedel H, Katsarava Z (2020) Administrative prevalence and incidence, characteristics and prescription patterns of patients with migraine in Germany: a retrospective claims data analysis. J Headache Pain 21:85. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-020-01154-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Vo P, Paris N, Bilitou A, Valena T, Fang J, Naujoks C et al (2018) Burden of migraine in Europe using self-reported digital diary data from the migraine buddy© application. Neurol Ther 7:321–332. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s40120-018-0113-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lyu S, Zhang CS, Sun J, Weng H, Xue CC, Guo X et al (2022) Chinese herbal medicine for migraine management: a hospital-based retrospective analysis of electronic medical records. Front Med (Lausanne) 9:936234. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3389/fmed.2022.936234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dodick DW, Shewale AS, Lipton RB, Baum SJ, Marcus SC, Silberstein SD et al (2020) Migraine patients with cardiovascular disease and contraindications: an analysis of real-world claims data. J Prim Care Community Health 11:2150132720963680. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/2150132720963680

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Antman EM, Bennett JS, Daugherty A, Furberg C, Roberts H, Taubert KA (2007) Use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: an update for clinicians: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 115:1634–1642. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1161/circulationaha.106.181424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cooper W, Doty EG, Hochstetler H, Hake A, Martin V (2020) The current state of acute treatment for migraine in adults in the United States. Postgrad Med 132:581–589. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/00325481.2020.1767402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Dong Z, Chen X, Steiner TJ, Hou L, Di H, He M et al (2015) Medication-overuse headache in China: clinical profile, and an evaluation of the ICHD-3 beta diagnostic criteria. Cephalalgia 35:644–651. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102414552533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang L, Novick D, Zhong S, Li J, Walker C, Harrison L et al (2023) Real-world analysis of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes of insufficient responders and responders to prescribed acute migraine treatment in China. Pain Ther. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s40122-023-00494-1

  31. Lipton RB, Fanning KM, Serrano D, Reed ML, Cady R, Buse DC (2015) Ineffective acute treatment of episodic migraine is associated with new-onset chronic migraine. Neurology 84:688–695. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1212/wnl.0000000000001256

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Luo N, Qi W, Zhuang C, Di W, Lu Y, Huang Z et al (2014) A satisfaction survey of current medicines used for migraine therapy in China: is Chinese patent medicine effective compared with Western medicine for the acute treatment of migraine? Pain Med 15:320–328. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/pme.12277

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Edvinsson L (2019) Role of CGRP in migraine. Handb Exp Pharmacol 255:121–130. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/164_2018_201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Monthly Report: New Drug Approvals in China, September 2023 (2023). https://baipharm.chemlinked.com/news/monthly-report-new-drug-approvals-in-china-september-2023. Accessed October 9 2023

  35. Nurtec ODT (rimegepant) Prescribing information. https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=19036. Accessed May 12 2023

  36. Vydura (Rimegepant) Prescribing Information. https://www.pfizerpro.co.uk/medicine/vydura. Accessed 2023 May 12

  37. Lipton RB, Croop R, Stock EG, Stock DA, Morris BA, Frost M et al (2019) Rimegepant, an Oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, for migraine. N Engl J Med 381:142–149. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1056/NEJMoa1811090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Croop R, Goadsby PJ, Stock DA, Conway CM, Forshaw M, Stock EG et al (2019) Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomised, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 394:737–745. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31606-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Croop R, Berman G, Kudrow D, Mullin K, Thiry A, Lovegren M, et al (2024) A Multicenter, Open-Label Long-Term Safety Study of Rimegepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine. Cephalalgia [Manuscript in Press]

  40. Lipton RB, Conway CM, Stock EG, Stock D, Morris BA, McCormack TJ et al (2018) Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Rimegepant 75 mg, an Oral CGRP receptor antagonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: results from a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, study 301. Headache: J Head Face Pain. 58:1287–1337

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yu S, Kim B-K, Guo A, Kim M-H, Zhang M, Wang Z et al (2023) Safety and efficacy of rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet for the acute treatment of migraine in China and South Korea: a phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Neurol 22:476–484. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00126-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Headache classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS) (2013) The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia 33:629–808. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102413485658

  43. Chinese Medical Association Group (2016) Guide to the prevention and treatment of migraine in China [Chinese]. Chin J Pain Med 22:721–727

    Google Scholar 

  44. Mayans L, Walling A (2018) Acute migraine headache: treatment strategies. Am Fam Physician 97:243–251

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tai FWD, McAlindon ME (2021) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the gastrointestinal tract. Clin Med (Lond) 21:131–134. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.7861/clinmed.2021-0039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Varga Z, Sabzwari SRA, Vargova V (2017) Cardiovascular risk of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: an under-recognized public health issue. Cureus. 9:e1144. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.7759/cureus.1144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Drożdżal S, Lechowicz K, Szostak B, Rosik J, Kotfis K, Machoy-Mokrzyńska A et al (2021) Kidney damage from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—myth or truth? Review of selected literature. Pharmacol Res Perspect 9:e00817. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1002/prp2.817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Moreno-Ajona D, Pérez-Rodríguez A, Goadsby PJ (2020) Small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists: a new approach to the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Med Drug Discov 7:100053. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/j.medidd.2020.100053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Croop R, Lipton RB, Kudrow D, Stock DA, Kamen L, Conway CM et al (2021) Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 397:51–60. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32544-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mohajer A, Scripture J, L’Italien G, Harris L, Coric V, Rosen N (2022) Reduction in opioid prescription fills and morphine milligram equivalent dispensed following initiation of Nurtec ODT treatment – a real world administrative claims study (S31.010). Neurology 98:3807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rosen N, Mohajer A, Abraham L, Brown J, Hygge Blakeman K, Jenkins A et al (2023) Reduction in barbiturate prescription fills and quantity dispensed following initiation of rimegepant treatment: a real-world administrative claims study. Headache 63:78

    Google Scholar 

  52. L’Italien G, Harris L, Mohajer A, Scripture J, Coric V, Rosen N (2022) Real world evidence of reduction in point prevalence of medication overuse headache after migraine therapy with rimegepant. Headache 62:80

    Google Scholar 

  53. Vandenbussche N, Laterza D, Lisicki M, Lloyd J, Lupi C, Tischler H et al (2018) Medication-overuse headache: a widely recognized entity amidst ongoing debate. J Headache Pain 19:50. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-018-0875-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Ashina S, Terwindt GM, Steiner TJ, Lee MJ, Porreca F, Tassorelli C et al (2023) Medication overuse headache. Nat Rev Dis Primers 9:5. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1038/s41572-022-00415-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Saengjaroentham C, Strother LC, Dripps I, Sultan Jabir MR, Pradhan A, Goadsby PJ et al (2020) Differential medication overuse risk of novel anti-migraine therapeutics. Brain 143:2681–2688. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1093/brain/awaa211

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Navratilova E, Behravesh S, Oyarzo J, Dodick DW, Banerjee P, Porreca F (2020) Ubrogepant does not induce latent sensitization in a preclinical model of medication overuse headache. Cephalalgia 40:892–902. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1177/0333102420938652

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Medical writing support was provided by Matt Soulsby, PhD, CMPP, of Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Pfizer. The authors thank the study participants, investigators, and study site staff.

Funding

This study was sponsored by BioShin, a wholly owned subsidiary of Biohaven Pharmaceuticals. Biohaven Pharmaceuticals was acquired by Pfizer in October 2022. Bioshin, Biohaven, and/or Pfizer were involved with study design, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. Employees of these companies, in their capacity as authors, were involved in developing the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China

    Shengyuan Yu & Mingjie Zhang

  2. Xianyang Hospital, Yan’an University, Xianyang, China

    Aihong Guo

  3. Changsha Central Hospital, Changsha, China

    Zhen Wang

  4. Wuhan Third Hospital, Wuhan, China

    Jianguang Liu

  5. The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

    Ge Tan

  6. Shaanxi Provincial Hospital, Xi’an, China

    Qian Yang

  7. The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Wulumuqi, Xinjiang Province, China

    Hasiyeti Yibulaiyin

  8. General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, District, Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China

    Huisheng Chen

  9. Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

    Yongbo Zhang

  10. Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, New Haven, CT, USA

    Robert Croop

  11. Pfizer (China) Research and Development Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China

    Yanhui Sun & Zhihong Lu

  12. Pfizer Inc, Beijing, China

    Yu Liu

  13. Pfizer Inc, Chengdu, China

    Qian Zhao

Authors
  1. Shengyuan Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aihong Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianguang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ge Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qian Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mingjie Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hasiyeti Yibulaiyin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Huisheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yongbo Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Robert Croop
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Yanhui Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Yu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Qian Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Zhihong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SY, MZ, RC, and ZL participated in study design. SY, AG, ZW, JL, GT, QY, MZ, HY, HC, and YZ enrolled participants in this study. ZL supervised the trial. YS was involved in statistical analysis. SY and ZL verified the data. All authors were involved in data interpretation and edited the manuscript for content and accuracy. All authors approved the final version. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhihong Lu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by an Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee for each participating investigational center. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was conducted in compliance with ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and all International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Shengyuan Yu, Aihong Guo, Zhen Wang, Jianguang Liu, Ge Tan, Qian Yang, Mingjie Zhang, Hasiyeti Yibulaiyin, Huisheng Chen, and Yongbo Zhang have no competing interests to declare. Robert Croop was an employee of Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, owns stock in Biohaven Ltd., was an employee of Pfizer, has received research payments from Pfizer, and provides services to Collima LLC which has had consulting agreements with Pfizer, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Manistee Therapeutics, and Vida Ventures Management Co., L.L.C. Yanhui Sun, Yu Liu, and Qian Zhao are employees of Pfizer and own stock in Pfizer. Zhihong Lu was an employee of Bioshin (a subsidiary of Biohaven) and is currently an employee of Pfizer.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1.

Additional file 2.

English plain langauge summary.

Additional file 3.

Chinese plain langauge summary.

Additional file 4.

Chinese full manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, S., Guo, A., Wang, Z. et al. 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. J Headache Pain 25, 57 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-024-01731-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s10194-024-01731-4

Keywords

The Journal of Headache and Pain

ISSN: 1129-2377

Contact us