Evidence Hub

Rimegepant as an acute treatment in a refractory migraine patient non-responder to two anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and triptans: Case report and pharmacological considerations

Andrea Burgalassi, Giulia Vigani, Alberto Boccalini, F. De Cesaris, Guido Mannaioni, A. Chiarugi, P. Geppetti, L. Iannone

Cephalalgia Reports, 2024

2 citations

Abstract

Background: Small molecule receptor antagonists (gepants), or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) have recently become available for migraine prophylaxis and/or acute treatment. Considering their shared mechanisms of action, if the failure to an anti-CGRP(R) mAbs preclude the effectiveness of gepants or vice versa is still unknown. Herein, we report the first case of a patient with refractory migraine responsive to the acute use of rimegepant that previously failed two different anti-CGRP(R) mAbs and with no response to other acute treatments. Finally, we performed a literature review on the use of gepants in patients that failed other anti-CGRP and/or triptans. Case: A 56-year-old female with a long history of chronic migraine without aura, fulfilling the EHF definition for a diagnosis of refractory migraine. Overall, the patient treated five not-consecutive migraine attacks. All of them were treated according to the predefined criteria. The mean (±SD) NRS before rimegepant assumption was 7.8 ± 0.9, all attacks cause at least severe impairment at onset, and no rescue medications were used. Pain free at 2 hours was achieved in three out of five attacks (60.0%), with no recurrence of migraine in the following 24 hours. The patient reported also a sustained benefit the day after the drug assumption. The response pain free was achieved after a mean time of 13.3 ± 4.5 minutes considering only attacks successfully treated (three out of five…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free