Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33241721›Full record

Trial reportCephalalgia : an international journal of headache2021

Time course of efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: Clinical implications.

Peter J Goadsby, Andrew M Blumenfeld, Richard B Lipton, David W Dodick, Kavita Kalidas, Aubrey M Adams, Abhijeet Jakate, Chengcheng Liu, Armin Szegedi, Joel M Trugman

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Galcanezumab modulates Capsaicin-induced C-fiber reactivity.Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache · 2022
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter J GoadsbyNIHR-Wellcome Trust King's Clinical Research Facility, SLaM Biomedical Research Centre, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3260-5904
Andrew M BlumenfeldHeadache Center of Southern California, Carlsbad, CA, USA.
Richard B LiptonAlbert Einstein College of Medicine and Montefiore Headache Center, Bronx, NY, USA.
David W DodickMayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Kavita KalidasUniversity of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Aubrey M AdamsAbbVie, Irvine, CA, USA.
Abhijeet JakateAbbVie, Madison, NJ, USA.
Chengcheng LiuAbbVie, Madison, NJ, USA.
Armin SzegediAbbVie, Madison, NJ, USA.
Joel M TrugmanAbbVie, Madison, NJ, USA.
AbbVie (United States) · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USKing's College London · GBMayo Clinic Hospital · USNeurology Center of Southern California · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe full utility of an acute treatment requires examination of the entire time course of effect during a migraine attack. Here the time course of effect of ubrogepant is evaluated.

methodsACHIEVE-I and -II were double-blind, single-attack, Phase 3 trials. Adults with migraine were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50mg or 100mg, ACHIEVE-I; 25 mg or 50 mg, ACHIEVE-II). Pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain relief were assessed at various timepoints. Samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. Data were pooled for this

resultsParticipants' (n = 912 placebo, n = 887 ubrogepant 50 mg, pooled analysis population) mean age was 41 years, with a majority female and white. Pain relief separated from placebo by 1 h (43% versus 37% [OR, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.0-1.59]), absence of most bothersome symptom by 1.5 h (28% versus 22% [1.42, 1.14-1.77]), and pain freedom by 2 h (20% vs. 13% [1.72, 1.33-2.22]). Efficacy was sustained from 2-24 h (pain relief: 1.71, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.71, 1.3-2.3) and remained separated at 48 h (pain relief: 1.7, 1.1-2.6; pain freedom: 1.31, 1.0-1.7). Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated maximum plasma concentrations were achieved at 1 h, with pharmacologically active concentrations reached within 11 min and remaining above the EC

conclusionsEvaluation of the time course of effect of ubrogepant showed pain relief as the most sensitive and earliest measure of clinical effect, followed by absence of most bothersome symptom, and pain freedom. Efficacy was demonstrated out to 48 h, providing evidence of the long-lasting effect of ubrogepant. This evaluation supports the role of examining the entire time course of effect to understand fully the utility of an acute treatment for migraine.

Indexed as

AdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMigraine DisordersPainPyridinesPyrrolesTreatment OutcomePyridinesPyrrolesubrogepantacutecalcitonin gene-related peptideMigraine

Identifiers

PMID33241721
PMCPMC8047719
OpenAlexW3108553667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.