CGRP antagonist 1

Indirect Comparison of Topiramate and Monoclonal Antibodies Against CGRP or Its Receptor for the Prophylaxis of Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Background: Head-to-head comparator trials between first-line oral migraine preventatives and the new monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have not been published to date. Objectives: This study aimed to indirectly compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mAbs against CGRP or its receptor (CGRPR) and topiramate in episodic migraine prophylaxis using meta-analysis. Methods: We included controlled trials testing efficacy and safety of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and topiramate in adults diagnosed with episodic migraine. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to November 2020. We used the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the risk of bias and report pooled mean effects (mean difference and risk ratio) as estimated in a random effect model. For efficacy analysis, we determined the reduction of monthly migraine days (MMDs), reduction of days with acute medication (AMDs), and 50% responder rates (50% RR). For safety, we determined adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥ 2% of study participants and the number of patients who discontinue treatment due to AEs (DAEs). The number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) were estimated as well as the likelihood to help or harm (LLH). Results: We included 13 trials involving 7557 patients: three trials with erenumab, two trials with galcanezumab, two trials with fremanezumab, one trial with eptinezumab, and five trials with topiramate, for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. The placebo-subtracted reduction (pooled mean difference) of MMDs were - 1.55 (95% CI - 1.86 to - 1.24; active drug n = 3326 vs placebo n = 2219, 8 studies) for the CGRP(R) mAb and - 1.11 (95% CI - 1.62 to - 0.59; active drug n = 1032 vs placebo n = 543, 4 studies) for topiramate (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). 'Cognitive' and 'sensory & pain'-related adverse events occurred more often in patients treated with topiramate compared with those treated with a CGRP(R) mAb (p for subgroup difference 0.03 and < 0.001, respectively). Based on the 50% RR and DAE, the NNT, NNH, and LHH for the CGRP(R) mAbs were 6, 130, and 24.3:1, respectively. For topiramate, these values were 7, 9, and 1.8:1, respectively. Conclusion: The efficacy of CGRP(R) mAbs to reduce migraine days does not differ from topiramate. However, the safety profile is in favor of the CGRP(R) mAbs, with a higher likelihood to help than to harm compared with topiramate. The diversity of endpoint determination and the heterogeneity between studies for some endpoints cause some limitations for this study.

CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling contributes to neuropathic pain via central sensitization mechanisms in a rat spinal nerve ligation model

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that the CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling axis is involved in the regulation of neuropathic pain (NP). Here, we performed experiments to test whether the CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling pathway contributes to the pathogenesis of neuropathic pain after spinal nerve ligation (SNL) via central sensitization mechanisms.
Methods: Neuropathic pain was induced and assessed in a SNL rat model. The expression and distribution of CXCL12 or CXCR4 were examined by immunofluorescence staining and western blot. The effects of CXCL12 rat peptide, CXCL12 neutralizing antibody, CXCR4 antagonist, and astrocyte metabolic inhibitor on pain hypersensitivity were explored by behavioral tests in naive or SNL rats. We measured the expression level of c-Fos and CGRP to evaluate the sensitization of neurons by RT-PCR. The activation of astrocyte and microglia was analyzed by measuring the level of GFAP and iba-1. The mRNA levels of the pro-inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6 and Connexin 30, Connexin 43, EAAT 1, EAAT 2 were also detected by RT-PCR.
Results: First, we found that the expression of CXCL12 and CXCR4 was upregulated after SNL. CXCL12 was mainly expressed in the neurons while CXCR4 was expressed both in astrocytes and neurons in the spinal dorsal horn after SNL. Moreover, intrathecal administration of rat peptide, CXCL12, induced hypersensitivity in naive rats, which was partly reversed by fluorocitrate. In addition, the CXCL12 rat peptide increased mRNA levels of c-Fos, GFAP, and iba-1. A single intrathecal injection of CXCL12 neutralizing antibody transiently reversed neuropathic pain in the SNL rat model. Consecutive use of CXCL12 neutralizing antibody led to significant delay in the induction of neuropathic pain, and reduced the expression of GFAP and iba-1 in the spinal dorsal horn. Finally, repeated intrathecal administration of the CXCR4 antagonist, AMD3100, significantly suppressed the initiation and duration of neuropathic pain. The mRNA levels of c-Fos, CGRP, GFAP, iba-1, and pro-inflammatory cytokines, also including Connexin 30 and Connexin 43 were decreased after injection of AMD3100, while EAAT 1 and EAAT 2 mRNAs were increased.
Conclusion: We demonstrate that the CXCL12/CXCR4 signaling pathway contributes to the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain via central sensitization mechanisms. Importantly, intervening with CXCL12/CXCR4 presents an effective therapeutic approach to treat the neuropathic pain.

Blocking CGRP in migraine patients - a review of pros and cons

Migraine is the most prevalent neurological disorder worldwide and it has immense socioeconomic impact. Currently, preventative treatment options for migraine include drugs developed for diseases other than migraine such as hypertension, depression and epilepsy. During the last decade, however, blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has emerged as a possible mechanism for prevention of migraine attacks. CGRP has been shown to be released during migraine attacks and it may play a causative role in induction of migraine attacks. Here, we review the pros and cons of blocking CGRP in migraine patients. To date, two different classes of drugs blocking CGRP have been developed: small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants), and monoclonal antibodies, targeting either CGRP or the CGRP receptor. Several trials have been conducted to test the efficacy and safety of these drugs. In general, a superior efficacy compared to placebo has been shown, especially with regards to the antibodies. In addition, the efficacy is in line with other currently used prophylactic treatments. The drugs have also been well tolerated, except for some of the gepants, which induced a transient increase in transaminases. Thus, blocking CGRP in migraine patients is seemingly both efficient and well tolerated. However, CGRP and its receptor are abundantly present in both the vasculature, and in the peripheral and central nervous system, and are involved in several physiological processes. Therefore, blocking CGRP may pose a risk in subjects with comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases. In addition, long-term effects are still unknown. Evidence from animal studies suggests that blocking CGRP may induce constipation, affect the homeostatic functions of the pituitary hormones or attenuate wound healing. However, these effects have so far not been reported in human studies. In conclusion, this review suggests that, based on current knowledge, the pros of blocking CGRP in migraine patients exceeds the cons.

CGRP receptor antagonist activity of olcegepant depends on the signalling pathway measured

Background Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide that acts in the trigeminovascular system and is believed to play an important role in migraine. CGRP activates two receptors that are both present in the trigeminovascular system; the CGRP receptor and the amylin 1 (AMY₁) receptor. CGRP receptor antagonists, including olcegepant (BIBN4096BS) and telcagepant (MK-0974), can treat migraine. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of these antagonists at blocking CGRP receptor signalling in trigeminal ganglia (TG) neurons and transfected CGRP and AMY₁ receptors in Cos7 cells, to better understand their mechanism of action. Methods CGRP stimulation of four intracellular signalling molecules relevant to pain (cAMP, CREB, p38 and ERK) were examined in rat TG neurons and compared to transfected CGRP and AMY₁ receptors in Cos7 cells. Results In TG neurons, olcegepant displayed signal-specific differences in antagonism of CGRP responses. This effect was also evident in transfected Cos7 cells, where olcegepant blocked CREB phosphorylation more potently than expected at the AMY₁ receptor, suggesting that the affinity of this antagonist can be dependent on the signalling pathway activated. Conclusions CGRP receptor antagonist activity appears to be assay-dependent. Thus, these molecules may not be as selective for the CGRP receptor as commonly reported.

Discovery of CGRP in relation to migraine