A Qualitative Study to Explore Patient Perspectives of Prophylactic Treatment with OnabotulinumtoxinA for Chronic Migraine

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

DISCUSSION

Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

Real-world experience of OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in female patients with chronic migraine: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) causes great disability and affects an individual's quality of life. OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A, Botox®) was the first prophylactic treatment specifically indicated for CM. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of women with CM treated with OBT-A.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study design is a qualitative descriptive study. A purposeful sampling of 30 women (mean age, 42.7; standard deviation, 10.6) who had received at least two administrations of OBT-A for CM (PREEMPT protocol) was performed. Data collection included in-depth interviews and researchers' field notes. A thematic analysis was carried out according to qualitative research guidelines.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: (a) A long way to go before Botox®, (b) First time hearing about the treatment and its expectations, (c) The administration of Botox®, (d) Treatment effects, and (e) Follow-up. Patients described a long history of treatment failures prior to the start of OBT-A treatment. Information about this migraine treatment came from the neurologist; following the information, patients had high expectations, including unrealistic expectations regarding the onset and duration of effect. They acknowledged fear of the injections and some discomfort due to the procedure. With treatment, participants reported better migraine control and an improvement in their quality of life. Follow-up had some barriers, such as delayed appointments for subsequent doses, but also strengths, such as effectiveness and few side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research offers insight into how patients with CM experience treatment with OBT-A. Our results highlight some relevant aspects that should be considered when providing OBT-A treatment.