Calcitonin receptors in GtoPdb v.2021.2

This receptor family comprises a group of receptors for the calcitonin/CGRP family of peptides. The calcitonin (CT), amylin (AMY), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and adrenomedullin (AM) receptors (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on CGRP, AM, AMY, and CT receptors [131, 74, 71]) are generated by the genes CALCR (which codes for the CT receptor) and CALCRL (which codes for the calcitonin receptor-like receptor, CLR, previously known as CRLR). Their function and pharmacology are altered in the presence of RAMPs (receptor activity-modifying proteins), which are single TM domain proteins of ca. 150 amino acids, identified as a family of three members; RAMP1, RAMP2 and RAMP3. There are splice variants of the CT receptor; these in turn produce variants of the AMY receptor [131], some of which can be potently activated by CGRP. The endogenous agonists are the peptides calcitonin, α-CGRP (formerly known as CGRP-I), β-CGRP (formerly known as CGRP-II), amylin (occasionally called islet-amyloid polypeptide, diabetes-associated polypeptide), adrenomedullin and adrenomedullin 2/intermedin. There are species differences in peptide sequences, particularly for the CTs. CTR-stimulating peptide (CRSP) is another member of the family with selectivity for the CT receptor but it is not expressed in humans [94]. CLR (calcitonin receptor-like receptor) by itself binds no known endogenous ligand, but in the presence of RAMPs it gives receptors for CGRP, adrenomedullin and adrenomedullin 2/intermedin. There are several approved drugs that target this receptor family, such as pramlintide, erenumab, and the "gepant" class of CGRP receptor antagonists.

Effect of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Receptor Antagonists on Migraine Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The pathophysiology of migraine has been researched incessantly, and it has been suggested that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is associated with migraine attacks. CGRP receptor blockers are attracting attention for migraine prevention and treatment of acute episodes, and CGRP receptor antagonists have been shown to be effective in treating acute migraine headaches. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effect of available CGRP receptor antagonists, focusing on their therapeutic doses for acute migraine treatment.Methods: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (from inception to March 2021) and EMBASE (from inception to March 2021) for English publications using the keywords “migraine” and “Calcitonin gene-related peptide,” limited to human studies.Results: Five studies that focused on examining the effects of CGRP receptor antagonists on acute migraine treatment met the eligibility criteria for this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that the CGRP receptor antagonist improved freedom from pain (OR=2.066, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.766–2.418, I2=0%), absence of bothersome symptoms (OR=1.606, 95% CI=1.408–1.830, I2=0%), pain relief (OR=1.791, 95% CI=1.598–2.008, I2=0%), and freedom from nausea (OR=1.361, 95% CI=1.196–1.548, I2=0%), significantly more than the placebo. Conclusions: CGRP receptor antagonists are effective for acute migraine treatment and are expected to be used clinically as emerging therapeutic agents.

CGRP Receptor Antagonists and 5-HT1F Receptor Agonist in the Treatment of Migraine

Discovering that calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in the complex pathophysiology of migraine has allowed us to make great strides in the development of new approaches for acute and preventive treatment. This evidence has led to the development of small molecules antagonist molecules of the CGRP receptor (“gepants”) and of a new class of medications called “Ditans”. This review presents the data from clinical trials reporting the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the new drugs used in the treatment of migraines. Evidences show that therapeutic approaches targeted to CGRP have the potential to transform the clinical management of migraine, even though its appropriate place has yet to be determined with accuracy.

Migraine therapeutics differentially modulate the CGRP pathway

Background The clinical efficacy of migraine therapeutic agents directed towards the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway has confirmed the key role of this axis in migraine pathogenesis. Three antibodies against CGRP – fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab – and one antibody against the CGRP receptor, erenumab, are clinically approved therapeutics for the prevention of migraine. In addition, two small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, are approved for acute migraine treatment. Targeting either the CGRP ligand or receptor is efficacious for migraine treatment; however, a comparison of the mechanism of action of these therapeutic agents is lacking in the literature. Methods To gain insights into the potential differences between these CGRP pathway therapeutics, we compared the effect of a CGRP ligand antibody (fremanezumab), a CGRP receptor antibody (erenumab) and a CGRP receptor small molecule antagonist (telcagepant) using a combination of binding, functional and imaging assays. Results Erenumab and telcagepant antagonized CGRP, adrenomedullin and intermedin cAMP signaling at the canonical human CGRP receptor. In contrast, fremanezumab only antagonized CGRP-induced cAMP signaling at the human CGRP receptor. In addition, erenumab, but not fremanezumab, bound and internalized at the canonical human CGRP receptor. Interestingly, erenumab also bound and internalized at the human AMY1 receptor, a CGRP receptor family member. Both erenumab and telcagepant antagonized amylin-induced cAMP signaling at the AMY1 receptor while fremanezumab did not affect amylin responses. Conclusion The therapeutic effect of agents targeting the CGRP ligand versus receptor for migraine prevention (antibodies) or acute treatment (gepants) may involve distinct mechanisms of action. These findings suggest that differing mechanisms could affect efficacy, safety, and/or tolerability in migraine patients.

Recent Advances in the Management of Cluster Headache

Purpose of review Among the spectrum of pain conditions, cluster headache represents one of the most severe. Targeted therapies for cluster headache are evolving thus improving the available therapeutic armamentarium. A better understanding of the currently available therapies, as well as new and emerging options, may aide physicians to manage affected sufferers better by evolving treatment guidance. Recent findings While classic first-line medications are useful in some patients with cluster headache, they are often accompanied by significant side effects that limit their use. Recently, novel treatments with better tolerability and decreased medication interactions have proven to be effective. A remarkable example of this is the blockage of the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway with monoclonal antibodies, which may be a key element in the future treatment of cluster headache. The sphenopalatine ganglion and vagus nerve perform a critical role in the regulation of pain and the trigeminal autonomic reflex. Neuromodulation therapies targeting these structures have shown excellent tolerability and few significant adverse events, constituting a promising form of treatment. Finally, several potential therapeutic targets are examined in this review, such as small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, known as gepants, and serotonin receptor 5-HT1F receptor agonists: ditans. Summary In summary, a deepening of the understanding of cluster headache mechanisms in recent years has driven the evolution of sophisticated therapeutic approaches that could allow a new era in the treatment of this difficult condition.

The locus of Action of CGRPergic Monoclonal Antibodies Against Migraine: Peripheral Over Central Mechanisms

Migraine is a complex neurovascular disorder characterized by attacks of moderate to severe unilateral headache, accompanied by photophobia among other neurological signs. Although an arsenal of antimigraine agents is currently available in the market, not all patients respond to them. As Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) have been developed. Unfortunately, further pharmaceutical development (for olcegepant and telcagepant) was interrupted due to pharmacokinetic issues observed during the Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT). On this basis, the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs; immunoglobulins) against CGRP or its receptor has recently emerged as a novel pharmacotherapy to treat migraines. RCT showed that these mAbs are effective against migraines producing fewer adverse events. Presently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved four mAbs, namely: (i) erenumab; (ii) fremanezumab; (iii) galcanezumab; and (iv) eptinezumab. In general, specific antimigraine compounds exert their action in the trigeminovascular system, but the locus of action (peripheral vs. central) of the mAbs remains elusive. Since these mAbs have a molecular weight of ∼150 kDa, some studies rule out the relevance of their central actions as they seem unlikely to cross the Blood-Brain Barrier (BBB). Considering the therapeutic relevance of this new class of antimigraine compounds, the present review has attempted to summarize and discuss the current evidence on the probable sites of action of these mAbs.

No additive effect of combining sumatriptan and olcegepant in the GTN mouse model of migraine

Introduction Despite recent advances in migraine treatment there is a need for therapies with higher clinical efficacy and/or fewer side effects. Triptans (5-HT1B/1D/1F agonists) are essential in the present treatment regime and gepants (CGRP-receptor antagonists) are recognized as effective in acute migraine treatment. Triptans and gepants have different mechanisms of action and here we tested the hypothesis that a combination of these drugs (sumatriptan and olcegepant) would result in an additive effect. Methods Using the validated glyceryl trinitrate mouse model of migraine, we initially tested dose-response relationships of sumatriptan (0.1, 0.3, and 0.6 mg/kg IP) and olcegepant (0.25, 0.50, and 1.0 mg/kg IP) to find suitable high and low doses. Subsequently, we performed a combination study of the two drugs with a low and a high dose. All experiments were vehicle (placebo) controlled and blinded. Results Sumatriptan significantly reduced glyceryl trinitrate-induced allodynia (F(4,54) = 13.51, p < 0.0001) at all doses. Olcegepant also reduced glyceryl trinitrate-induced allodynia (F(4,53) = 16.11, p < 0.0001) with the two higher doses being significantly effective. Combining 0.50 mg/kg olcegepant with 0.1 or 0.6 mg/kg sumatriptan did not have any improved effect compared to either drug alone ( p > 0.50 on all days) in our mouse model. Conclusion Combining olcegepant and sumatriptan did not have an additive effect compared to single-drug treatment in this study. Triptan-gepant combinations will therefore most likely not improve migraine treatment. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary, and combinations should also be examined in patients with migraine.