Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Rimegepant improves both headache pain and physical function in clinical studies for the acute treatment of migraine. It is not clear whether rimegepant has direct effects on physical function or if improvements in function are an indirect treatment effect mediated through reductions in headache pain. The objective of this study was to estimate the extent to which rimegepant-mediated reductions in headache pain intensity contribute to improvements in physical functioning during a migraine attack.

Methods

Data were pooled from four placebo-controlled trials of rimegepant 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine. Participants rated current headache pain and functional disability on four-point scales prior to dosing and from 15 min to 48 h post-dose. A cross-sectional mediation model including variables for pain, function, and treatment (rimegepant or placebo) was run separately at each timepoint. Based on results of cross-sectional modeling, a longitudinal pseudo-steady-state mediation model was constructed to estimate relationships between variables using all available data during the period when all processes in the model were considered to have achieved and maintained equilibrium. The pseudo-steady-state model assumed relationships between variables were the same at all timepoints.

Results

Across all studies and treatment groups, participants (N = 3975) were mostly female (75.2–89.2%) and mean age was 40.0 to 41.9 years. Cross-sectional models (N = 3441–3834 across timepoints) indicated that the period represented by measurements at 3, 4, 6, and 8 h can be considered a pseudo-steady-state period for a mediation model representing inter-relationships among headache pain, function, and treatment. The pseudo-steady-state model (N = 3281) incorporated all available data from 3, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose and estimated that 76.1% of the effect of treatment on function is mediated indirectly via improvements in headache pain, with 23.9% representing a direct effect (representing all other effects/mediators not included in the model).

Conclusion

The effect of rimegepant on functioning was largely mediated through reductions in headache pain intensity during the migraine attack. Approximately one-quarter of the improvement in functioning was mediated through factors other than pain intensity.

Graphical abstract

This is a visual representation of the abstract.

Keywords

acute mediation modeling migraine headache pain physical function rimegepant

Background

Migraine affects over 1 billion individuals worldwide, with an estimated 1-year period prevalence of 14% to 15%.^1,2 The hallmark characteristic of a migraine attack is typically the headache phase, which is usually unilateral, pulsating, and moderate-to-severe in intensity.³ Other common symptoms include nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia (which may be present in the headache phase as well as other phases of migraine).³ Migraine headache pain is also typically aggravated by physical activity, leading patients to avoid such activity.³ A migraine attack can also have pre-headache and post-headache phases that are also associated with symptoms causing negative health impact and disability.⁴ The impact of migraine on daily functioning, work productivity, and overall quality of life is substantial, with migraine representing the leading cause of years lived with disability among women aged 15 to 49 years and the second leading cause across all ages and genders.^5–7

Headache pain is a key concern among patients with migraine,^8–10 and reduction of this pain is a primary endpoint in clinical trials.¹¹ As a result, recommended acute treatments for migraine include non-specific analgesics (e.g. acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) for attacks of mild pain severity, and migraine-specific agents (e.g. triptans, gepants, ditans) for moderate-to-severe pain.¹² Opioids are also commonly used, although their use is explicitly recommended against by organizations such as the American Headache Society.¹³

Rimegepant is an oral small-molecule inhibitor of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor and the only agent currently approved for both acute treatment of migraine (with or without aura) and preventive treatment of episodic migraine (migraine with headache on ≤14 days per month) in adults.¹⁴ CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine attacks and headache pain.^15,16 Rimegepant has been shown to improve both pain and physical function compared with placebo in phase 3 clinical studies for the acute treatment of migraine.^17–21 However, it is not clear whether rimegepant has direct effects on physical function or if improvements in function are an indirect treatment effect mediated through improvements in headache pain. Examining the relationships between treatment, pain, and function is key to understanding the mechanisms through which rimegepant leads to improvement in patient outcomes.

Mediation modeling can be used to explore relationships between different variables, including relationships between treatment and different patient outcomes in clinical trials.^22–26 The objective of the current study, therefore, was to apply mediation modeling to estimate the extent to which rimegepant-mediated reductions in headache pain intensity contribute to improvements in physical functioning during a migraine attack.

Methods

Data sources

This was a pooled analysis of data from four previously published, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757, NCT05399459).^17–19^,21 Studies NCT03235479, NCT03237845, and NCT03461757 were conducted in the United States, and study NCT05399459 was conducted in Japan. All studies were conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and all International Council on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice Guidelines. Study protocols were reviewed and approved by institutional review boards and/or independent ethics committees. All participants provided written informed consent. This article was written in accordance with STROBE reporting guidelines.

Briefly, each trial included a screening period of 3 to 28 days, an acute treatment period of up to 45 days, and an end-of-treatment visit. In each study, participants were aged ≥18 years and had a ≥1-year history of migraine (with or without aura), two to eight attacks of moderate or severe headache pain intensity per month in the past 3 months, and <15 headache (migraine or non-migraine) days per month during the 3 months before screening. In studies NCT03235479, NCT03237845, and NCT03461757, participants were randomized in a double-blind 1:1 manner to rimegepant 75 mg or matching placebo. In study NCT05399459, participants were randomized in a double-blind 1:1:1 manner to rimegepant 25 mg, rimegepant 75 mg, or matching placebo; only participants from the rimegepant 75 mg and placebo arms from study NCT05399459 were included in the mediation analyses. Participants were provided a single dose of rimegepant 75 mg (conventional oral tablet in two studies, orally disintegrating tablet (ODT) in two studies) or placebo to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity within the next 45 days. The ODT (marketed rimegepant formulation) and conventional tablet formulations are bioequivalent.²⁷

Upon experiencing a migraine attack with moderate or severe headache pain, and prior to dosing of study medication, participants recorded pain intensity (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and level of functional disability (0 = normal, 1 = mildly impaired, 2 = severely impaired, 3 = requires bedrest) in an electronic diary (eDiary). Following administration of study medication, participants used the eDiary to rate pain intensity and functional disability at 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min and at 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 24, and 48 h post-dose. Preventive migraine treatments were permitted during each study if dosing was stable for at least 3 months prior to screening. Other headache treatments were prohibited for 2 h after dosing with study medication. Acute rescue medication (aspirin, ibuprofen, acetaminophen up to 1000 mg/day (2000 mg/day in study NCT05399459), NSAIDs, anti-emetics, or baclofen) was allowed if pain was not relieved at 2 h post-dose or if pain that was relieved at 2 h returned to moderate or severe intensity between 2 and 48 h post-dose. These were the only medications allowed for acute rescue treatment between 2 and 48 h post-dose.

Mediation modeling

Cross-sectional and longitudinal pseudo-steady-state mediation models were used to examine the relationships among treatment, headache pain (simply referred to as pain hereafter), and physical function. The models included observed variables of pain, function, and treatment. Treatment was represented by a binary variable, which was rimegepant (value of 1) versus placebo (value of 0). Pain was evaluated as the mediator of the effect of treatment on function, meaning that treatment leads to improvement in pain and, in turn, having less pain leads to improvement in function. Pain intensity and level of functional disability were measured using the eDiary as described in the previous section. No imputation of missing data was performed. Error terms were included in our mediation models to represent and account for unexplained variance in the dependent variable (function in our models, with error represented by e_func) and the mediator (pain in our models, with error represented by e_pain). Data analysis was performed using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

First, a cross-sectional mediation model (Figure 1) was run separately at each data collection timepoint from 15 min post-dose to 48 h post-dose. Each cross-sectional model included only participants with data available for all variables at the timepoint being assessed (i.e. participants needed to have treatment, pain, and function data at 15 min post-dose to be included in the analysis at 15 min). The cross-sectional model was used to identify a timeframe when the system was in a pseudo-steady-state, meaning a period when all processes in the model were considered to have achieved and maintained equilibrium. Estimated standardized path loadings were plotted at each timepoint for the path from pain to function and for the path from treatment to pain.

Figure 1.

Cross-sectional mediation models. Treatment is a binary variable: rimegepant (value of 1) or placebo (value of 0). Function represents functional disability. Pain represents headache pain severity. e_pain and e_func represent error terms. Curved two-headed arrows pointing to the same variable represent variance.

A longitudinal pseudo-steady-state mediation model (Figure 2) was then constructed to estimate relationships between variables using data from every timepoint when all processes in the cross-sectional model were considered to have achieved and maintained equilibrium. The longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model only included participants with data available for all variables at all timepoints during the pseudo-steady-state period (i.e. if cross-sectional modeling identified the period from 1 to 3 h post-dose as the pseudo-steady-state period, then participants needed to have treatment, pain, and function data available at all timepoints from 1 to 3 h to be included in the longitudinal simulations). As a result, because of (a) missing data and (b) natural attrition of participants in the studies, a smaller number of observations were available in the longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model than the cross-sectional model.

Figure 2.

Longitudinal pseudo-steady-state mediation model. Treatment is a binary variable: rimegepant (value of 1) or placebo (value of 0). Function3, 4, 6, and 8 represent functional disability at 3, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose, respectively. Pain3, 4, 6, and 8 represent headache pain severity at 3, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose, respectively. e_pain3, 4, 6, 8 and e_func3, 4, 6, 8 represent error terms at the specified times post-dose. Curved two-headed arrows pointing to the same variable represent variance. Curved two-headed arrows pointing to different variable represent covariance.

Additionally, unlike the cross-sectional model, the longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model assumed that relationships between variables were the same at all timepoints. This was done by constraining the corresponding path coefficients to be the same at all timepoints. Further, the longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model does not assume independence between the measurements of pain and function at every timepoint (as cross-sectional models do) by allowing to covary the related error terms (i.e. covariances between error terms associated with pain measurements and covariances between error terms associated with function measurements).

Direct and indirect effects of treatment on function were calculated and were presented as a percentage of the overall effect of treatment on function. The indirect effect is defined as the proportion of the total effect the independent variable (“treatment” in our models) has on the dependent variable (“function” in our models) that can be explained by the mediator variable (“pain”). More simply, it represents how much of the total effect of treatment on function is due to improvements in pain. The indirect effect is represented by dashed lines (treatment → pain → function) in our model schematics. The direct effect can, in principle, be from the treatment itself but, in practice, it typically represents all other effects/mediators not included in the model and is represented as solid lines (treatment → function) in our model schematics.

Results

Participants

Participant (N = 3975) demographics and baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the rimegepant and placebo groups in each of the four studies included in the analysis (Table 1). Across all groups, 75.2% to 89.2% of participants were female, mean age was 40.0 to 41.9 years, 65.0% to 87.8% of participants had primarily migraine without aura, and the mean number of attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity per month in the 3 months prior to screening was 4.3 to 4.8.

Table 1.

Demographics and clinical characteristics of participants in each study.

	NCT03235479		NCT03237845		NCT03461757		NCT05399459
	Rim 75 mg(n = 543)	Placebo(n = 541)	Rim 75 mg(n = 537)	Placebo(n = 535)	Rim 75 mg(n = 669)	Placebo(n = 682)	Rim 75 mg(n = 238)	Placebo(n = 230)
Age, years
Mean (SD)	41.9 (12.3)	41.3 (12.1)	40.2 (11.9)	40.9 (12.1)	40.3 (12.1)	40.0 (11.9)	40.5 (11.3)	41.5 (11.3)
Range	19–73	19–71	18–72	18–84	18–76	18–72	18–70	18–69
Sex, n (%)
Female	464 (85.5)	463 (85.6)	479 (89.2)	472 (88.2)	568 (84.9)	579 (84.9)	189 (79.4)	173 (75.2)
Male	79 (14.5)	78 (14.4)	58 (10.8)	63 (11.8)	101 (15.1)	103 (15.1)	49 (20.6)	57 (24.8)
Race, n (%)^a
White	417 (76.8)	444 (82.1)	394 (73.4)	399 (74.6)	496 (74.1)	521 (76.4)	–	–
Black or African American	107 (19.7)	80 (14.8)	111 (20.7)	118 (22.1)	141 (21.1)	125 (18.3)	–	–
Other^b	19 (3.5)	17 (3.1)	32 (6.0)	18 (3.4)	30 (4.5)	36 (5.3)	–	–
Missing	0	0	0	0	2 (0.3)	0	–	–
Ethnicity, n (%)^a
Hispanic or Latino	58 (10.7)	68 (12.6)	77 (14.3)	83 (15.5)	116 (17.3)	135 (19.8)	–	–
Not Hispanic or Latino	485 (89.3)	473 (87.4)	460 (85.7)	452 (84.5)	553 (82.7)	547 (80.2)	–	–
Primary migraine type, n (%)
Without aura	353 (65.0)	358 (66.2)	355 (66.1)	366 (68.4)	480 (71.7)	462 (67.7)	199 (83.6)	202 (87.8)
With aura	190 (35.0)	183 (33.8)	182 (33.9)	169 (31.6)	189 (28.3)	220 (32.3)	39 (16.4)	28 (12.2)
Average duration of untreated attacks (h)
Mean (SD)	30.2 (21.7)	29.4 (21.7)^c	32.0 (22.5)	32.9 (21.7)	28.7 (21.5)	30.4 (21.7)	22.7 (18.2)	21.0 (16.2)
Range	4–72	4–72	4–96	4–72	4–72	4–72	4–72	4–72
No. of attacks with moderate or severe pain intensity per month
Mean (SD)	4.8 (1.7)	4.7 (1.8)	4.5 (1.9)	4.6 (1.8)	4.6 (1.8)	4.5 (1.8)	4.4 (1.7)	4.3 (1.7)
Range	2–11	2–8	2–11	2–8	2–8	2–8	2–8	2–8
Historical most bothersome symptom, n (%)
Nausea	152 (28.0)	138 (25.5)	142 (26.4)	142 (26.5)	148 (22.1)	169 (24.8)	132 (55.5)	125 (54.3)
Phonophobia	89 (16.4)	101 (18.7)	79 (14.7)	90 (16.8)	125 (18.7)	136 (19.9)	28 (11.8)	40 (17.4)
Photophobia	302 (55.6)	302 (55.8)	316 (58.8)	303 (56.6)	394 (58.9)	376 (55.1)	75 (31.5)	65 (28.3)
Missing	0	0	0	0	2 (0.3)	1 (0.1)	3 (1.3)	0

Rim: rimegepant.

Not collected in study NCT05399459; all participants were from Japan/living in Japan.

Includes Asian, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or multiple responses.

Participants, n = 540.

Cross-sectional model

The number of participants included in the cross-sectional model ranged from 3441 to 3834 across timepoints. Figure 3 shows standardized path loadings derived from cross-sectional modeling at every timepoint from 15 min to 48 h post-dose. The path from pain to function (blue line) can be considered stable for the period starting at 3 h post-dose to the end of the observation period (48 h post-dose). This path can be considered to be representative of the general relationship between pain and function and, as such, it is not that dependent on treatment effect. Paths from treatment to pain show a different pattern. Initially (15–30 min post-dose), paths from treatment to pain are very close to zero. Path loadings then began to increase (in absolute value; negative value here shows that treatment reduces pain) and were considered stable from 3 to 8 h post-dose. Standardized path loadings then declined and were again close to zero at 24 and 48 h post-dose.

Figure 3.

Estimated standardized path loading (cross-sectional models). The upper blue curve represents the pain-to-function standardized path loading. The lower red curve represents the treatment-to-pain standardized path loading. The time periods where each curve was considered to be stable is represented by a straight red (upper curve) or blue (lower curve) line. NS: not significant

Longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model

The longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model incorporated data only from 3, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose (the period when cross-sectional modeling was considered to have achieved and maintained equilibrium). The number of participants included in the longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model was 3281. The longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model estimated that 76.1% (P < 0.0001) of the effect of treatment on function is mediated indirectly via improvements in pain and the remaining 23.9% (P < 0.0001) is a direct effect (representing all other effects/mediators not included in the model; Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Estimated direct and indirect effects (longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model). Function represents functional disability. Pain represents headache pain severity.

Discussion

Previous studies of rimegepant have shown that acute treatment improves both headache pain and function in patients with migraine.^17–21 In the current pooled analysis of data from four trials of rimegepant, mediation modeling analyses in participants with migraine indicated that a large proportion (76%) of the acute treatment effects of rimegepant on physical function can be explained by improvements in pain. A smaller proportion (24%) of the overall effect on function was a direct effect (representing all other effects/mediators not included in the model).

Given the assumed causal relationship between pain and function, the mechanism of action of rimegepant (CGRP receptor antagonist),¹⁴ and the documented role of CGRP signaling in migraine pain pathogenesis,¹⁵ it is not surprising that such a large proportion of rimegepant's effect on function is being mediated through improvements in pain. Any mediators responsible for the direct effect of rimegepant on function observed in this study, accounting for 24% of the total effect, are unknown. As such, discussion regarding any potential mediators is speculative. Nausea, phonophobia, and photophobia are common symptoms of migraine that can occur during and outside of the headache phase.³ It is possible, therefore, that the direct effects of rimegepant on function observed in this study are due to improvements in one or more of these symptoms. For example, CGRP plays an important role in gastrointestinal function²⁸ and pre-clinical findings have demonstrated that, in contrast to triptans, use of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists attenuates motion-induced nausea.²⁹ Nausea occurs as a pre-monitory symptom (independent of pain and trigeminal activation) in some patients and specific brain regions (including the periaqueductal gray within the brain stem nuclei) are activated during the pre-monitory phase in such individuals.³⁰ It is possible that CGRP action at these sites underlies migraine-associated nausea. Pre-clinical evidence has also shown that CGRP causes photophobia and phonophobia through both peripheral and central neuronal mechanisms.^31,32 CGRP may also play a role in mood, with pre-clinical evidence suggesting that CGRP causes anxiety by depleting dopamine in the dorsal hippocampus via the heterochromatin protein 1 gamma—Krüppel-like factor 11—monoamine oxidase B pathway.³³ Additionally, anti-CGRP antibodies have been shown to reduce symptoms of depression in patients with migraine, independent of migraine reduction.³⁴ Our study, however, examined the acute use of a single dose of rimegepant and it is unclear whether any effects of CGRP-inhibition on nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, or mood would contribute to improvement in function during the pseudo-steady state period (3–8 h post-dose) identified by our models.

Previous studies have explored the association between pharmacologic treatment, pain, and function in individuals with migraine. For example, patients with migraine who achieved pain freedom at 2 h following acute treatment with lasmiditan were more likely to have other positive outcomes, including freedom from disability, than patients with mild pain at 2 h post-dose.³⁵ Our study attempted to quantify how much of the observed effect of rimegepant on physical function is indirectly due to improvements in pain. Other studies have attempted to do this in other chronic pain conditions, with similar findings. In participants with osteoarthritis, for example, mediation modeling estimated that at least 75% of the treatment effect of the nerve growth factor inhibitor tanezumab on physical functioning could be attributed to improvements in pain.²⁶

Mediation models, like all causal models, assume that all processes with the system being modeled achieve and maintain equilibrium (i.e. in a pseudo-steady-state). Our approach initially used cross-sectional modeling to establish the time period that can be considered as the pseudo-steady-state. Cross-sectional models, however, can be biased if processes are happening over time.³⁶ To address this bias, we also conducted an additional longitudinal model using data from timepoints where the cross-sectional models indicated that the system achieved and appeared to maintain an equilibrium (3, 4, 6, and 8 h post-dose). This longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model incorporates all available data across each of these timepoints and was the model used to estimate direct and indirect effects of treatment on function.

Headache pain is generally considered the hallmark symptom of a migraine attack and a key concern among patients.^3,8,9 In our study, pain was the only mediator analyzed to understand the relationship between rimegepant treatment and improvements in function. This was based on the importance of pain in the migraine experience and an assumed causal relationship between improvements in pain and improvements in function. Our findings were consistent with, and support, this assumed causal relationship, as it was estimated that 76% of the overall improvements in function were an indirect result of improvements in pain. Thus, while the results of the models aligned with such a relationship, they do not inherently or necessarily prove that the causal relationship exists (i.e. that rimegepant-mediated improvements in pain cause improvements in function). For example, it is possible that other mediators not evaluated in this study (e.g. nausea, photo- and phonophobia, allodynia, mood, anxiety, stress, sleep) could covary with migraine pain intensity and contribute to improvements in function. Given the large proportion of the treatment effect on function being mediated by pain (76%), it is likely that at least some of the explained variance is due to relationships between pain and other related mediators. It is also likely that adding additional mediators to the model could increase the proportion of explained variance in the treatment effect on functioning. Future research examining relationships among treatment, pain, and function could consider other mediators (in both parallel and serial mediation with pain) to better understand their independent and shared contribution to the overall effect of treatment on function.

Our models used observed data without imputation for missing values. As such, results are conditional on the participants who had pain and function evaluations in a given model. However, the analyses are strengthened by the large sample sizes (N = 3441 to 3834 across timepoints in cross-sectional modeling and N = 3281 in the longitudinal model). Another strength is that all studies included in the model shared similar designs, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outcome measures. A notable exception is that study NCT05399459 was conducted in Japan and, therefore, all participants were of Asian race; the other three studies were conducted in the United States and had few Asian participants. Study NCT05399459 also included a rimegepant 25 mg treatment arm (not included in the three other studies) that was excluded from the mediation analyses.

Conclusions

Cross-sectional and longitudinal pseudo-steady-state mediation modeling using data pooled from four randomized, placebo-controlled trials in participants with migraine indicated that the effect of rimegepant on functioning was largely mediated through reductions in pain intensity during the acute migraine attack phase. However, approximately one-quarter of the improvement in functioning was mediated through factors other than pain intensity. These findings highlight the key role pain reduction plays in overall migraine treatment response. Other mediators (e.g. nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, cognition) may also play a role in overall response, and their relative contribution could be the focus of future research.

Clinical implications

Mediation modeling indicated that approximately three-quarters of the effect of rimegepant on functioning are mediated through reductions in pain intensity during the acute migraine attack phase.

Approximately one-quarter of the improvement in functioning was mediated through factors other than pain intensity (e.g. nausea, photophobia, phonophobia, cognition) and the relative contribution of these factors could be the focus of future research.

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

Medical writing support was provided by Matt Soulsby, PhD, CMPP, of Engage Scientific Solutions and was funded by Pfizer.

ORCID iDs

Lucy Abraham

Dawn C. Buse

Joseph C. Cappelleri

Elizabeth K. Seng

Ethical considerations

Study protocols were approved by an institutional review board or independent ethics committee for each participating investigational center. Full details can be found in the original study publications.

Consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent.

Consent for publication

The authors agree to publish with Ceph Reports.

Author contributions

LA: data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript. AGB: study design, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript. DCB: data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript. JCC: study design, data analysis, data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript. DCS: data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript. EKS: data interpretation, writing and revising manuscript, and approval of manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Pfizer.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: LA, JCC, and DCS are employees of, and hold stock/options in, Pfizer. AGB is a former employee of, and holds stock in, Pfizer. DCB has been a consultant for AbbVie/Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Theranica, and Teva; serves on the editorial board of Current Pain and Headache Reports; and has received grant support from the FDA and the National Headache Foundation. EKS has consulted or served on advisory boards for Abbvie, Pfizer, and Click Therapeutics.

Data availability statement

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 .

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757, and NCT05399459.

References

Stovner

Hagen

Linde

, et al. The global prevalence of headache: an update, with analysis of the influences of methodological factors on prevalence estimates. J Headache Pain 2022; 23: 34.

Steiner

Stovner

. Global epidemiology of migraine and its implications for public health and health policy. Nat Rev Neurol 2023; 19: 109–117.

Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia 2018; 38: 1–211.

McGinley

Mangrum

Gerstein

, et al. Symptoms across the phases of the migraine cycle from the patient's perspective: results of the MiCOAS qualitative study. Headache 2025; 65: 303–314.

GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020; 396: 1204–1222 .

Steiner

Stovner

Jensen

, et al. Migraine remains second among the world's causes of disability, and first among young women: findings from GBD2019. J Headache Pain 2020; 21: 137.

Buse

Fanning

Reed

, et al. Life with migraine: effects on relationships, career, and finances from the chronic migraine epidemiology and outcomes (CaMEO) study. Headache 2019; 59: 1286–1299.

Shen

. Patient preferences and values in decision making for migraines: a systematic literature review. Pain Res Manag 2021; 2021: 9919773.

Vikelis

Dimitrios

Argyriou

, et al. Preferences and perceptions of 617 migraine patients on acute and preventive migraine treatment attributes and clinical trial endpoints. Expert Rev Neurother 2024; 24: 815–826.

10.

Mangrum

Gerstein

Hall

3rd , et al. Priority acute and preventive migraine treatment benefits: results of the migraine clinical outcome assessment system (MiCOAS) qualitative study of people living with migraine. Headache 2023; 63:953–964.

11.

Hindiyeh

Kellerman

Schmidt

. Review of acute treatment of migraine trial results with the new FDA endpoints: design implications for future trials. Headache 2019; 59: 819–824.

12.

Ailani

Burch

Robbins

, et al. The American Headache Society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache 2021; 61:1021–1039.

13.

Loder

Weizenbaum

Frishberg

, et al. Choosing wisely in headache medicine: the American Headache Society's list of five things physicians and patients should question. Headache 2013; 53: 1651–1659.

14.

Pfizer. Nurtec ODT (rimegepant) prescribing information, https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=19036 (2020, accessed 7 November 2024).

15.

Edvinsson

Haanes

Warfvinge

, et al. CGRP as the target of new migraine therapies—successful translation from bench to clinic. Nat Rev Neurol 2018;14:338–350.

16.

Charles

Digre

Goadsby

, et al. Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: an American Headache Society position statement update. Headache 2024; 64: 333–341.

17.

Lipton

Croop

Stock

, et al. Rimegepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, for migraine. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 142–149.

18.

Lipton

Thiry

Morris

, et al. Efficacy and safety of rimegepant 75 mg oral tablet, a CGRP receptor antagonist, for the acute treatment of migraine: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Pain Res 2024; 17: 2431–2441.

19.

Croop

Goadsby

Stock

, et al. 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 2019; 394: 737–745.

20.

Kim

Guo

, et al. 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 2023; 22: 476–484.

21.

Ikeda

Matsumori

Kudo

, et al. Efficacy and safety of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine in Japan: a dose-ranging, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Headache 2025; 65: 1811–1820.

22.

MacKinnon

Fairchild

Fritz

. Mediation analysis. Annu Rev Psychol 2007; 58: 593–614.

23.

Lee

Cashin

Lamb

, et al. A guideline for reporting mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies: the AGReMA statement. Jama 2021; 326: 1045–1056.

24.

Cappelleri

Bushmakin

. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2014; 23: 460–483.

25.

Taylor

Bushmakin

Cappelleri

, et al. Itch as Major mediator of effect of tofacitinib on health-related quality of life in psoriatic arthritis: a mediation analysis. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 4081.

26.

Abraham

Dworkin

Turk

, et al. Examining the relationships among treatment, pain, and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis: a mediation-modeling approach. Clin J Pain 2023; 39: 159–165.

27.

Croop

Bhardwaj

Anderson

, et al. Bioequivalence of rimegepant, a small molecule CGRP receptor antagonist, administered as an oral tablet, a sublingual orally disintegrating tablet, and a supralingual orally disintegrating tablet: two phase 1 randomized studies in healthy adults. Cephalalgia 2024; 44: 3331024231219505.

28.

Ailani

Kaiser

Mathew

, et al. Role of calcitonin gene-related peptide on the gastrointestinal symptoms of migraine-clinical considerations: a narrative review. Neurology 2022; 99:841–853.

29.

Rahman

Luebke

. Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonism reduces motion sickness indicators in mouse migraine models. Cephalalgia 2024; 44: 3331024231223971.

30.

Maniyar

Sprenger

Schankin

, et al. The origin of nausea in migraine—a PET study. J Headache Pain 2014; 15: 84.

31.

Mason

Kaiser

Kuburas

, et al. Induction of migraine-like photophobic behavior in mice by both peripheral and central CGRP mechanisms. J Neurosci 2017; 37: 204–216.

32.

Rahman

Faucher

Jonnala

, et al. Systemic calcitonin gene-related peptide modifies auditory and vestibular end organ electrical potentials, and increases sensory hypersensitivities. J Neurophysiol 2025; 134: 107–117.

33.

Hashikawa-Hobara

Fujiwara

Hashikawa

. CGRP causes anxiety via HP1γ–KLF11–MAOB pathway and dopamine in the dorsal hippocampus. Commun Biol 2024; 7: 322.

34.

de Vries Lentsch

van der Arend

BWH

de Boer

, et al. Depression and treatment with anti-calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) (ligand or receptor) antibodies for migraine. Eur J Neurol 2024; 31: e16106 .

35.

Lipton

Baygani

Tepper

, et al. A close association of freedom from pain, migraine-related functional disability, and other outcomes: results of a post hoc analysis of randomized lasmiditan studies SAMURAI and SPARTAN. J Headache Pain 2021; 22: 101.

36.

Cain

Zhang

Bergeman

. Time and other considerations in mediation design. Educ Psychol Meas 2018; 78: 952–972.

Use of mediation modeling to examine the relationships among treatment with rimegepant,headache pain severity,and functional disability in patients with migraine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Background

Methods

Data sources

Mediation modeling

Results

Participants

Cross-sectional model

Longitudinal pseudo-steady-state model

Discussion

Conclusions

Clinical implications

Footnotes

Abbreviations

Acknowledgments

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Consent for publication

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

Trial registration

References