P.010 Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine: a single-attack phase 3 study, ACHIEVE II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To evaluate efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine attacks. Methods: Multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 study (NCT02867709). Randomized patients (1:1:1, placebo or ubrogepant 25mg or 50mg) had 60 days to treat one migraine attack (moderate/severe pain intensity). Co-primary efficacy endpoints (2 hours post initial dose): headache pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (MBS). Secondary endpoints: pain relief, sustained pain relief, sustained pain freedom, and absence of migraine-associated symptoms. Results: 1686 patients were randomized (safety population: n=1465; mITT population: n=1355). Mean age: 41 years; white: 81%; female: 89%. Significantly greater proportions of ubrogepant- than placebo-treated patients achieved 2-hour pain freedom (placebo: 14.3%; 25mg: 20.7%, adjusted P=0.0285; 50mg: 21.8%, adjusted P=0.0129) and absence of MBS for 50mg (placebo: 27.4%; 50mg: 38.9%, adjusted P=0.0129). Secondary endpoints (except absence of nausea at 2h) met statistical significance versus placebo for ubrogepant 50mg. Absence of MBS and secondary outcomes were not significant for 25mg after multiplicity adjustment. Ubrogepant’s and placebo’s AE profiles were similar. Conclusions: Co-primary endpoints were met for ubrogepant 50mg. Ubrogepant 25mg was significantly superior to placebo for 2h pain freedom. Ubrogepant was well tolerated. Results support the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine attacks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".