What is known and objectives Migraine is a disabling disorder that affects individuals of all ages. To date, there are multiple limitations to using guidelines‐recommended treatments and preventive therapies. The goal of this review was to provide a comprehensive clinical review of the safety, efficacy and prescribing information of the emerging calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) antagonists. Agents in this new pharmacologic class were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of acute migraine attack pain and the management of episodic and chronic migraine. Methods A total of 12 randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trials were identified and included in the review utilizing databases such as clinicaltrial.gov, PubMed and EMBASE. The trials collectively evaluated six CGRP antagonists starting from the orally administered CGRPs such as rimegepant and ubrogepant, to the quarterly IV administered CGRP such as eptinezumab, and the monthly/quarterly subcutaneously administered agents such as erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab. Results and discussion All agents displayed significant efficacy compared with placebo, measured by reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMD). In addition, CGRP antagonists displayed a great tolerability profile with few adverse effects. These medications were neither associated with any cardiovascular‐related adverse effects, nor do they currently have specific contraindications to pre‐existing cardiovascular conditions. This can present a safe alternative to a wide range of patients who cannot be appropriately treated with first‐line treatments such as triptans. No treatment‐related death was reported in any of the clinical trials outlined and discussed. What is new and conclusion Calcitonin gene‐related peptide antagonists are safe and efficacious medications both in treating acute migraine headache pain and the management of episodic and chronic migraine. Head‐to‐head comparative studies with current guideline‐recommended treatments are needed. However, CGRP antagonists are promising agents that present an alternative solution for patients living with migraine.
Introduction The advent of new disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), such as monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), resulted in significant changes in the treatment guidelines for Multiple sclerosis (MS) and improvement in the clinical outcomes. However, mAbs, such as rituximab, natalizumab, and ocrelizumab, are expensive with variable effectiveness rates. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the direct medical cost and consequences (e.g., clinical relapse, disability progression, and new MRI lesions) between rituximab and natalizumab in managing relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) in Saudi Arabia. Also, the study aimed to explore the cost and consequence of ocrelizumab in managing RRMS as a second-choice treatment. Methods The electronic medical records (EMRs) of patients with RRMS were retrospectively reviewed to retrieve the patients’ baseline characteristics and disease progression from two tertiary care centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Biologic–naïve patients treated with rituximab or natalizumab or those switched to ocrelizumab and treated for at least six months were included in the study. The effectiveness rate was defined as no evidence of disease activity (NEDA-3) (i.e., absence of new T2 or T1 gadolinium (Gd) lesions as demonstrated by the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), disability progression, and clinical relapses), while the direct medical costs were estimated based on the utilization of healthcare resources. In addition, bootstrapping with 10,000 replications and inverse probability weighting based on propensity score were conducted. Results Ninety–three patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (natalizumab (n = 50), rituximab (n = 26), ocrelizumab (n = 17)). Most of the patients were otherwise healthy (81.72%), under 35 years of age (76.34%), females (61.29%), and on the same mAb for more than one year (83.87%). The mean effectiveness rates for natalizumab, rituximab, and ocrelizumab were 72.00%, 76.92%, and 58.83%, respectively. Natalizumab mean incremental cost compared to rituximab was $35,383 (95% CI: $25,401.09– $49,717.92), and its mean effectiveness rate was 4.92% lower than rituximab (95% CI: -30–27.5) with 59.41% confidence level that rituximab will be dominant. Conclusions Rituximab seems to be more effective and is less costly than natalizumab in the management of RRMS. Ocrelizumab does not seem to slow the rates of disease progression among patients previously treated with natalizumab.
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic disease with ever-increasing prevalence worldwide. In our study, we evaluated the prevalence of the risk of developing T2DM in Saudi Arabia and investigated associations between that risk and various sociodemographic characteristics. To those ends, a web-based cross-sectional survey of Saudi nationals without diabetes, all enrolled using snowball sampling, was conducted from January 2021 to January 2022. The risk of developing T2DM was evaluated using a validated risk assessment questionnaire (ARABRISK), and associations of high ARABRISK scores and sociodemographic variables were explored in multivariable logistic regression modeling. Of the 4559 participants, 88.1% were 18 to 39 years old, and 67.2% held a college or university degree. High ARABRISK scores were observed in 7.5% of the sample. Residing in a midsize city versus a large city was associated with a lower ARABRISK risk score (p = 0.007), as were having private instead of governmental insurance (p = 0.005), and being unemployed versus employed (p < 0.001). By contrast, being married (p < 0.001), divorced or widowed (p < 0.001), and/or retired (p < 0.001) were each associated with a higher ARABRISK score. A large representative study is needed to calculate the risk of T2DM among Saudi nationals.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.