Real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant.

Objective: To assess the real-world efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant in a tertiary headache center.

Background: The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were established in phase 3 randomized controlled trials. However, there is no real-world data of patient experience with ubrogepant in a population in which the majority of patients have chronic migraine, multiple prior unsuccessful treatments, complex medical comorbidities, and concurrent use of other migraine-specific medications.

Method: This was a post-market cohort study conducted at Mayo Clinic Arizona. All patients prescribed ubrogepant were tracked and contacted 1-3 months after the prescription to answer a list of standardized questions. Demographic information and additional headache history were obtained from chart review.

Results: We obtained eligible questionnaire responses from 106 patients. Chronic migraine accounted for 92/106 (86.8%) of the population. Complete headache freedom (from mild/moderate/severe to no pain) and headache relief (from moderate/severe to mild/no pain or mild to no pain) for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant were achieved in 20/105 (19.0%) and 50/105 (47.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 33/106 (31.1%) patients reported being "very satisfied" with ubrogepant. Adverse events were reported in 42/106 (39.6%) patients, including fatigue in 29/106 (27.4%), dry mouth in 8/106 (7.5%), nausea/vomiting in 7/106 (6.6%), constipation in 5/106 (4.7%), dizziness in 3/106 (2.8%), and other adverse events in 7/106 (6.6%). Predictive factors for being a "good responder" to ubrogepant, defined as headache relief for ≥75% of all treated attacks at 2 hours after taking ubrogepant, included migraine with aura, episodic migraine, <5 prior unsuccessful preventive or acute treatment trials. Additionally, prior treatment responses to a CGRP monoclonal antibody and onabotulinumtoxinA injections are predictive of treatment responses and patient satisfaction to ubrogepant. For the 62/106 (58.5%) patients concurrently using a CGRP monoclonal antibody, there was no difference in the "good responder" rate or adverse event rate compared to those who were not on a CGRP monoclonal antibody, though the rate of moderate, as opposed to mild adverse events was higher, 11/62 (47.8%) versus 3/44 (17.6%), p = 0.048. Additionally, 16 patients had a history of significant cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases. No severe adverse events were reported in any patient.

Conclusion: Our study confirms and extends the efficacy profile and tolerability of ubrogepant in a real-world tertiary headache clinic and identifies factors that may predict efficacy. Adverse event rates were higher than reported in clinical trials. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of ubrogepant.