The Spectrum of Response to Erenumab in Patients With Episodic Migraine and Subgroup Analysis of Patients Achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% Response

Reducing the Impact of Headache and Allodynia Score in Chronic Migraine: An Exploratory Analysis from the Real-World Effectiveness of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies Compared to Onabotulinum Toxin A (RAMO) Study

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) is a disabling and hard-to-treat condition, associated with high disability and high cost. Among the preventive treatments, botulinum toxin A (BoNT-a) and monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related protein (anti-CGRP mAbs) are the only disease-specific ones. The assessment of the disease burden is complex, and among others, tools such as the allodynia symptoms checklist (ASC-12) and headache impact test (HIT-6) are very useful. This exploratory study analysed the impact of these two therapies on migraine burden.

METHODS

The RAMO study was a multicentre, observational, retrospective investigation conducted in two headache centres: the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta (Milan) and the Fondazione Policlinico Campus Bio-Medico (Rome). This study involved patients with chronic migraine treated with mAbs or BoNT-A. We conducted a subgroup exploratory analysis on HIT-6 and ASC-12 scores in the two groups. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were performed.

RESULTS

Of 126 patients, 36 on mAbs and 90 on BoNT-A had at least one available follow-up. mAbs resulted in a mean reduction of -11.1 and -11.4 points, respectively, in the HIT-6 at 6 and 12 months, while BoNT-A was reduced -3.2 and -3.6 points, respectively; the mAbs arm resulted in mean reductions in ASC-12 at 6 and 12 months of follow-up of -5.2 and -6.0 points, respectively, while BoNT-A showed lesser mean changes of -0.5 and -0.9 points, respectively. The adjusted analysis confirmed our results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory analysis, anti-CGRP mAbs showed superior effectiveness for HIT-6 and ASC12 compared to BoNT-A. Reductions in terms of month headache days (MHD), migraine disability assessment test (MIDAS), and migraine acute medications (MAM) were clinically relevant for both treatments.

Towards precision medicine in migraine: Recent therapeutic advances and potential biomarkers to understand heterogeneity and treatment response

After 35 years since the introduction of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), we are living in the era of the second great revolution in migraine therapies. First, discoveries of triptans provided a breakthrough in acute migraine treatment utilizing bench-to-bedside research results on the role of serotonin in migraine. Next, the discovery of the role of neuropeptides, more specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine attack led to the development of anti-CGRP therapies that are effective both in acute and preventive treatment, and are also able to reduce migraine-related burden. Here, we reviewed the most recent clinical studies and real-world data on available migraine-specific medications, including triptans, ditants, gepants and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Novel drug targets, such as PACAP and amylins were also discussed. To address the main challenges of migraine therapy, the high heterogeneity of people with migraine, the prevalent presence of various comorbid disorders, and the insufficient medical care of migraine patients were covered. Promising novel approaches from the fields of omics, blood and saliva biomarker, imaging and provocation studies might bring solutions for these challenges with the potential to identify further drug targets, distinguish more homogeneous patient subgroups, contribute to more optimal drug selection strategies, and detect biomarkers in association with headache features or predicting treatment efficacy. In the future, the combined analysis of data of different biomarker modalities with machine learning algorithms may serve precision medicine in migraine treatment.

Erenumab efficacy in migraine headache prophylaxis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to show the efficiency of Erenumab in the preventive therapy of episodic and chronic migraine, which is still under research.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic neurovascular disorder that causes disability and a social burden. There are various medications used for migraine prevention regimens, most of which have unwanted side effects and aren't often quite effective. Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide receptors and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for migraine prevention.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we searched through Scopus and PubMed databases using "Erenumab" or "AMG 334" and "migraine" as keywords, and all the studies from 2016 to March 18, 2022, were included. Original English articles assessing any outcomes referring to the efficacy of Erenumab in migraine headache treatment were included in this study.

RESULTS

We found 53 out of 605 papers eligible to be investigated. Erenumab in both dosages of 70 mg and 140 mg could decrease the mean of monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Erenumab also has a higher rate of ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, and 100 % reduction in monthly migraine days from the baseline in different regions. The efficacy of Erenumab was initiated in the first week of administration and sustained throughout and after treatment. Erenumab was also potent in the treatment of migraine with allodynia, aura, prior preventive therapy failure, medication overuse headache, and menstrual migraine. Erenumab also had favorable outcomes in combination therapy with other preventive drugs like Onabotulinumtoxin-A.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab had remarkable efficacy in the short and long-term treatment of episodic and chronic migraine, notably the patients with difficult-to-treat migraine headaches.

Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and real-world studies revealed a spectrum of response to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in migraine prophylaxis, ranging from no effect at all to total migraine freedom. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical characteristics between super-responders (SR) and non-responders (NR) to CGRP(-receptor) mAbs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study at the Headache Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The definition of super-response was a ≥ 75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) in the third month after treatment initiation compared to the month prior to treatment begin (baseline). Non-response was defined as ≤ 25% reduction in MHD after three months of treatment with a CGRP-receptor mAb and subsequent three months of treatment with CGRP mAb, or vice versa. We collected demographic data, migraine disease characteristics, migraine symptoms during the attacks in both study groups (SR/NR) as well as the general medical history. SR and NR were compared using Chi-square test for categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Between November 2018 and June 2022, n = 260 patients with migraine received preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) mAbs and provided complete headache documentation for the baseline phase and the third treatment month. Among those, we identified n = 29 SR (11%) and n = 26 NR (10%). SR reported more often especially vomiting (SR n = 12/25, 48% vs. NR n = 4/22, 18%; p = 0.031) and typical migraine characteristics such as unilateral localization, pulsating character, photophobia and nausea. A subjective good response to triptans was significantly higher in SR (n = 26/29, 90%) than in NR (n = 15/25, 60%, p = 0.010). NR suffered more frequently from chronic migraine (NR n = 24/26, 92% vs. SR n = 15/29, 52%; p = 0.001), medication overuse headache (NR n = 14/24, 58% versus SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.024), and concomitant depression (NR n = 17/26, 65% vs. SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Several clinical parameters differ between SR and NR to prophylactic CGRP(-R) mAbs. A thorough clinical evaluation prior to treatment initiation might help to achieve a more personalized management in patients with migraine.

Machine-learning based approach to predict anti-CGRP response in patients with migraine: multicenter Spanish study

BACKGROUND

To date, several variables have been associated with anti-CGRP receptor or ligand-antibody response with disparate results. Our objective is to determine whether machine learning (ML)-based models can predict 6, 9 and 12 months response to anti-CGRP receptor or ligand therapies among migraine patients.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter analysis of a prospectively collected data cohort of patients with migraine receiving anti-CGRP therapies. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. Response rate defined in the 30% to 50% range -or at least 30%-, in the 50% to 75% range -or at least 50%-, and response rate over 75% reduction in the number of headache days per month at 6, 9 and 12 months. A sequential forward feature selector was used for variable selection and ML-based predictive models response to anti-CGRP therapies at 6, 9 and 12 months, with models' accuracy not less than 70%, were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients were included, 93% women, aged 48 years (SD=11.7). Eighty-three percent had chronic migraine. ML models using headache days/month, migraine days/month and HIT-6 variables yielded predictions with a F1 score range of 0.70-0.97 and AUC (area under the receiver operating curve) score range of 0.87-0.98. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) summary plots and dependence plots were generated to evaluate the relevance of the factors associated with the prediction of the above-mentioned response rates.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our study, ML models can predict anti-CGRP response at 6, 9 and 12 months. This study provides a predictive tool to be used in a real-world setting.

A real-world, observational study of erenumab for migraine prevention in Canadian patients

Objectives

To assess real‐world effectiveness, safety, and usage of erenumab in Canadian patients with episodic and chronic migraine with prior ineffective prophylactic treatments.

Background

In randomized controlled trials, erenumab demonstrated efficacy for migraine prevention in patients with ≤4 prior ineffective prophylactic migraine therapies. The “Migraine prevention with AimoviG: Informative Canadian real‐world study” (MAGIC) assessed real‐world effectiveness of erenumab in Canadian patients with migraine.

Methods

MAGIC was a prospective open‐label, observational study conducted in Canadian patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (EM) with two to six categories of prior ineffective prophylactic therapies. Participants were administered 70 mg or 140 mg erenumab monthly based on physician’s assessment. Migraine attacks were self‐assessed using an electronic diary and patient‐reported outcome questionnaires. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) after the 3‐month treatment period.

Results

Among the 95 participants who mostly experienced two (54.7%) or three (32.6%) prior categories of ineffective prophylactic therapies and who initiated erenumab, treatment was generally safe and well tolerated; 89/95 (93.7%) participants initiated treatment with 140 mg erenumab. At week 12, 32/95 (33.7%) participants including 17/64 (26.6%) CM and 15/32 (48.4%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD while 30/86 (34.9%) participants including 19/55 (34.5%) CM and 11/31 (35.5%) EM achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD at week 24. Through patient‐reported outcome questionnaires, 62/95 (65.3%) and 45/86 (52.3%) participants reported improvement of their condition at weeks 12 and 24, respectively. Physicians observed improvement in the condition of 78/95 (82.1%) and 67/86 (77.9%) participants at weeks 12 and 24, respectively.

Conclusion

One‐third of patients with EM and CM achieved ≥50% MMD reduction after 3 months of erenumab treatment. This study provides real‐world evidence of erenumab effectiveness, safety, and usage for migraine prevention in adult Canadian patients with multiple prior ineffective prophylactic treatments.

Erenumab for episodic migraine

In this review, the authors provide an overview of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody used for the preventative treatment of episodic migraine by targeting the CGRP pathway. Randomized controlled trials have shown that erenumab is associated with a statistically significant decrease in monthly migraine days in patients with episodic migraine at monthly doses of 70 or 140 mg when given for a period of 9-12 weeks. Post hoc analyses have also shown long-term maintenance of efficacy. Clinical trials have found erenumab at doses of both 70 and 140 mg to have a favorable safety profile. Erenumab faces significant limitations because of its high financial cost. Additional long-term real-world data are needed to understand the role of erenumab in the treatment of migraine.

Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab.

Methods

ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women.

Results

Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs.

Conclusions

The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01408-w.

Predictors of clinical response to erenumab in patients with migraine

Background:

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies have emerged as efficacious preventive therapies for some, but not all patients with migraine. It is not yet fully understood what predicts treatment response.

Objective:

To identify factors associated with good or poor response to erenumab, the first available CGRP monoclonal antibody.

Methods:

A chart review of patients with migraine from a large headache center who received at least three 4-weekly doses of erenumab between 2018 and 2020 was conducted. Clinical variables were compared between erenumab responders (defined as ≥30% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at 3 months) and non-responders via logistic regression analyses.

Results:

Among 90 enrolled patients, 62.2% were erenumab responders and 37.8% non-responders. A significantly larger proportion of non-responders were unemployed (58.8% vs. 28.6%), had complex diagnosis (chronic migraine overlapping another primary or secondary headache) (47.1% vs. 14.3%), higher monthly headache days (30 vs. 25.5) and migraine days (20 vs. 12), a higher frequency of daily headache (76.5% vs. 48.2%), and failed more preventive therapies (5.5 vs. 3). Based on logistic regressions, erenumab responsiveness did not significantly associate with duration of migraine, presence of aura, medication overuse, number of concurrent preventives, response to onabotulinumtoxinA or triptans, or certain comorbidities and substance use.

Conclusions:

This work may help improve selection of patients who may benefit from erenumab, but further prospective research studies are needed.

Salivary CGRP can monitor the different migraine phases: CGRP (in)dependent attacks

BACKGROUND

CGRP plays a key role in the transmission and modulation of nociceptive signals and is a critical component in the pathogenesis of migraine.

OBJECTIVE

To assess saliva as a substrate to measure CGRP by comparing interictal levels in patients with episodic migraine and controls; and to evaluate CGRP's temporal profile during migraine attacks.

METHODS

This prospective observational pilot study included young women with episodic migraine and healthy controls. We monitored salivary CGRP-like immunoreactivity (CGRP-LI) during 30 consecutive days and during migraine attacks. We considered six timepoints for the analysis: interictal (72h headache free), preictal (PRE-24h before the attack), ictal (headache onset, after 2h, after 8h), postictal (POST-24h after the attack). CGRP levels were quantified by ELISA.

RESULTS

44 women (22 with episodic migraine, 22 healthy controls) were recruited. Differences in interictal salivary levels of CGRP between patients and controls (Me [IQR]: 98.0 [80.3] (95% CI 56.6, 124.0) vs. 54.3 [44.0] (95% CI 42.2, 70.1) pg/mL, p = 0.034) were found. An increase in CGRP levels during migraine attacks was detected (pre:169.0 [95% CI 104.2-234.0]; headache onset: 247.0 [181.9-312.0]; after 2h: 143.0 [77.6-208.0]; after 8h: 169.0 [103.5-234.0], post: 173.0 [107.8-238.0]). Patients were classified as having CGRP-dependent (79.6%) and non-CGRP dependent migraine attacks (20.4%) according to the magnitude of change between preictal and ictal phase. Accompanying symptoms such as photophobia and phonophobia were significantly associated to the first group.

CONCLUSIONS

Salivary CGRP-LI levels, which interictally are elevated in episodic migraine patients, usually increase during a migraine attack in the majority of patients. However, not every attack is CGRP-dependent, which in turn, might explain different underlying pathophysiology and response to treatment.

The impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant migraine patients: a real-world evidence observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency and headache-related impact response to monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in a clinical sample of refractory migraine patients.

METHODS

We included migraine patients with ≥ 8 headache days/month that had failed at least three preventive medications. Demographic, medical and migraine history were collected. Patients completed an electronic headache diary including headache days/month, migraine days/month, headache pain intensity (0-3 numerical scale), use of analgesics and completed Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires at baseline and after 12 weeks. Patients were classified into ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% responders according to the improvement in frequency.

RESULTS

We included 155 patients (109 erenumab and 46 galcanezumab). After 12 weeks, headache frequency decreased - 9.1 headache days/month and - 8.5 migraine days/month from baseline. A 39.5% had a ≥ 50% headache days/month reduction and a 51.6% ≥ 50% migraine days/month reduction. In the ≥ 50% migraine days/month-responders group, frequency reduction was - 13,9 migraine days/month from baseline and showed clear improvements for all patient-reported outcomes. A 14.2% and 26.5% had a ≥ 75% response in headache and migraine days/month, respectively, and 11.0% showed a 100% migraine days/month reduction. Patients who were not on other preventive medications had less severe disability and higher ratio of migraine over headache days/month were more likely of being a ≥ 50% migraine days/month-responder. We did not record any severe adverse events, being the most common constipation (20.0%), fatigue (7.1%) and a transient increase in blood pressure (5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, monoclonal antibodies against CGRP proved to be effective treatments in resistant migraine patients.