Comparative effectiveness of atogepant and rimegepant for migraine prevention in Japanese patients: an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy and safety/tolerability of atogepant versus rimegepant as preventive migraine treatments in Japanese patients using anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs). METHODS: Three placebo-controlled trials were included: RELEASE and PROGRESS (atogepant), and BHV3000-309 (rimegepant). Efficacy outcomes included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) and mean monthly acute medication use days (MUDs). Quality-of-life endpoints included Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) v2.1 Role Function-Restrictive (RFR) domain score, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) total score, and EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) score. Safety/tolerability outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: Atogepant demonstrated a statistically significant greater reduction from baseline in mean MMDs (mean difference [MD]: 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.48, -0.18) and monthly acute MUDs (MD: ‑1.97; 95% CI: -3.06, -0.87) versus rimegepant across 12 weeks; and a statistically significant greater improvement from baseline in MSQ v2.1 RFR domain score at Week 12 (MD: 4.80; 95% CI: 0.15, 9.45). No significant differences were identified for other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In these MAICs, atogepant was associated with statistically significant greater reductions in MMDs and monthly acute MUDs, and greater improvements in MSQ v2.1 RFR domain scores versus rimegepant in Japanese patients with migraine.