Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study

A Monoclonal Antibody to PACAP for Migraine Prevention

BACKGROUND

Targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) is a new avenue for treating migraine. The efficacy and safety of intravenous Lu AG09222, a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against the PACAP ligand, for migraine prevention are unclear.

METHODS

In a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled adult participants (18 to 65 years of age) with migraine for whom two to four previous preventive treatments had failed to provide a benefit. The trial included a 4-week treatment period and an 8-week follow-up period. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1:2 ratio to receive a single-dose baseline infusion of 750 mg of Lu AG09222, 100 mg of Lu AG09222, or placebo. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine days per month, during weeks 1 through 4, in the Lu AG09222 750-mg group as compared with the placebo group.

RESULTS

Of 237 participants enrolled, 97 received 750 mg of Lu AG09222, 46 received 100 mg of Lu AG09222, and 94 received placebo. The mean number of baseline migraine days per month was 16.7 in the overall population, and the mean change from baseline over weeks 1 through 4 was -6.2 days in the Lu AG09222 750-mg group, as compared with -4.2 days in the placebo group (difference, -2.0 days; 95% confidence interval, -3.8 to -0.3; P = 0.02). Adverse events with a higher incidence in the Lu AG09222 750-mg group than in the placebo group during the 12-week observation period included coronavirus disease 2019 (7% vs. 3%), nasopharyngitis (7% vs. 4%), and fatigue (5% vs. 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In a phase 2 trial, a single intravenous infusion of 750 mg of Lu AG09222 showed superiority over placebo in reducing migraine frequency over the subsequent 4 weeks. (Funded by H. Lundbeck; HOPE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05133323.).

Erenumab versus topiramate: migraine-related disability, impact and health-related quality of life

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

HER-MES was the first head-to-head study of erenumab against topiramate (standard of care). This post hoc analysis of the HER-MES study evaluated the effect of erenumab versus topiramate on patient-reported outcomes at week 24.

METHODS

Adult patients with episodic or chronic migraine (n = 777) were randomized (1:1) to monthly subcutaneous erenumab (n = 389) or daily oral topiramate (n = 388). Migraine-related disability, as measured by the Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) and Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), was analysed in the entire study cohort and true completers.

RESULTS

In the erenumab group (vs. topiramate), significant improvements were reported in Headache Impact Test 6 total scores (composite populations, -10.88 vs. -7.72; true completers, -11.92 vs. -10.61) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a ≥5-point reduction from baseline with erenumab (composite populations, 72.2% vs. 53.9%; true completers, 79.64% vs. 71.43%). The adjusted mean change from baseline in the SF-36v2 score was greater with erenumab for both physical component summary (composite population, 5.48 vs. 3.63; true completers, 5.95 vs. 5.23) and mental component summary (composite populations, 1.00 vs. -1.18; true completers, 1.74 vs. -0.33). A higher proportion of patients on erenumab versus topiramate had a ≥5-point improvement in SF-36v2 for the physical component summary (composite populations, 47.7% vs. 37.4%; true completers, 52.1% vs. 48.9%) and mental component summary (composite populations, 25.3% vs. 16.8%; true completers, 27.3% vs. 17.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated that patients treated with erenumab had significant improvements in headache impact and quality of life as measured by patient-reported outcomes versus patients treated with topiramate.

A 3-year follow-up study of outcomes associated with patterns of traditional acute and preventive migraine treatment: An administrative claims-based cohort study in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on long-term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010-December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011-December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added-on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT-persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine-specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow-up).

RESULTS

During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3-year follow-up, migraine-specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non-persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added-on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non-persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3-7 months).

CONCLUSION

Migraine-specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non-persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine.

The impact of genetic factors on the response to migraine therapy

Migraine is a multidimensional disease affecting a large portion of the human population presenting with a variety of symptoms. In the era of personalized medicine, successful migraine treatment presents a challenge, as several studies have shown the impact of a patient's genetic profile on therapy response. However, with the emergence of contemporary treatment options, there is promise for improved outcomes. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus, in order to obtain studies investigating the impact of genetic factors on migraine therapy outcome. Overall, 23 studies were included in the current review, exhibiting diversity in the treatments used and the genetic variants investigated. Divergent genes were assessed for each category of migraine treatment. Several genetic factors were identified to contribute to the heterogeneous response to treatment. SNPs related to pharmacodynamic receptors, pharmacogenetics and migraine susceptibility loci were the most investigated variants, revealing some interesting significant results. To date, various associations have been recorded correlating the impact of genetic factors on migraine treatment responses. More extensive research needs to take place with the aim of shedding light on the labyrinthine effects of genetic variations on migraine treatment, and, consequently, these findings can promptly affect migraine treatment and improve migraine patients' life quality in the vision of precise medicine.

Acupuncture plus topiramate placebo versus topiramate plus sham acupuncture for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine: A single-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acupuncture has been used for the treatment of chronic migraine, but high-quality evidence is scarce. We aimed to evaluate acupuncture's efficacy and safety compared to topiramate for chronic migraine.

METHODS

This double-dummy randomized controlled trial included participants aged 18-65 years diagnosed with chronic migraine. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive acupuncture (three sessions/week) plus topiramate placebo (acupuncture group) or topiramate (50-100 mg/day) plus sham acupuncture (topiramate group) over 12 weeks, with the primary outcome being the mean change in monthly migraine days during weeks 1-12.

RESULTS

Of 123 screened patients, 60 (mean age 45.8, 81.7% female) were randomly assigned to acupuncture or topiramate groups. Acupuncture demonstrated significantly greater reductions in monthly migraine days than topiramate (weeks 1-12: -2.79 [95% CI: -4.65 to -0.94, p = 0.004]; weeks 13-24: -3.25 [95% CI: -5.57 to -0.92, p = 0.007]). No severe adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture may be safe and effective for treating chronic migraine. The efficacy of 12 weeks of acupuncture was sustained for 24 weeks and superior to that of topiramate. Acupuncture can be used as an optional preventive therapy for chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.org Identifier 13563102.

Nonspecific oral medications versus anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) versus nonspecific oral migraine preventives (NOEPs).

BACKGROUND

Insurers mandate step therapy with NOEPs before approving CGRP mAbs.

METHODS

Databases were searched for class I or II randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CGRP mAbs or NOEPs versus placebo for migraine prevention in adults. The primary outcome measure was monthly migraine days (MMD) or moderate to severe headache days.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs for CGRP mAbs, 5 RCTs for topiramate, and 3 RCTs for divalproex were included in the meta-analysis. There was high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, with weighted mean difference (WMD; 95% confidence interval) of -1.64 (-1.99 to -1.28) MMD, which is compatible with small effect size (Cohen's d -0.25 [-0.34 to -0.16]). Certainty of evidence that topiramate or divalproex is more effective than placebo was very low and low, respectively (WMD -1.45 [-1.52 to -1.38] and -1.65 [-2.30 to -1.00], respectively; Cohen's d -1.25 [-2.47 to -0.03] and -0.48 [-0.67 to -0.29], respectively). Trial sequential analysis showed that information size was adequate and that CGRP mAbs had clear benefit versus placebo. Network meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between CGRP mAbs and topiramate (WMD -0.19 [-0.56 to 0.17]) or divalproex (0.01 [-0.73 to 0.75]). No significant difference was seen between topiramate or divalproex (0.21 [-0.45 to 0.86]).

CONCLUSIONS

There is high certainty that CGRP mAbs are more effective than placebo, but the effect size is small. When feasible, CGRP mAbs may be prescribed as first-line preventives; topiramate or divalproex could be as effective but are less well tolerated. The findings of this study support the recently published 2024 position of the American Headache Society on the use of CGRP mAbs as the first-line treatment.

Medication "underuse" headache

BACKGROUND

Many risk factors have been associated with migraine progression, including insufficient and ineffective utilization of migraine medications; however, they have been inadequately explored. This has resulted in suboptimal usage of medications without effective altering of prescribing recommendations for patients, posing a risk for migraine chronification.

METHODS

Our aim is to conduct a comprehensive review of the available evidence regarding the underuse of migraine medications, both acute and preventive. The term "underuse" includes, but is not limited to: (1) ineffective use of appropriate and inappropriate medication; (2) underutilization; (3) inappropriate timing of usage; and (4) patient dissatisfaction with medication.

RESULTS

The underuse of both acute and preventive medications has been shown to contribute to the progression of migraine. In terms of acute medication, chronification occurs as a result of insufficient drug use, including failure of the prescriber to select the appropriate type based on pain intensity and disability, patients taking medication too late (more than 60 minutes after the onset or after central sensitization has occurred as evidenced by allodynia), and discontinuation because of lack of effect or intolerable side effects. The underlying cause of inadequate effectiveness of acute medication lies in its inability to halt the propagation of peripheral activation to central sensitization in a timely manner. For oral and injectable preventive migraine medications, insufficient efficacy and intolerable side effects have led to poor adherence and discontinuation with subsequent progression of migraine. The underlying pathophysiology here is rooted in the repetitive stimulation of afferent sensory pain fibers, followed by ascending brainstem pain pathways plus dysfunction of the endogenous descending brainstem pain inhibitory pathway. Although anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) medications partially address pain caused by the above factors, including decreased efficacy and tolerability from conventional therapy, some patients do not respond well to this treatment. Research suggests that initiating preventive anti-CGRP treatment at an early stage (during low frequency episodic migraine attacks) is more beneficial than commencing it during high frequency episodic attacks or when chronic migraine has begun.

CONCLUSIONS

The term "medication underuse" is underrecognized, but it holds significant importance. Optimal usage of acute care and preventive migraine medications could potentially prevent migraine chronification and improve the treatment of migraine attacks.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update

OBJECTIVE

To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches.

METHODS

Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare.

CONCLUSION

The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Eptinezumab Demonstrated Efficacy Regardless of Prior Preventive Migraine Treatment Failure Type: Post Hoc Analyses of the DELIVER Study

INTRODUCTION

In the DELIVER study, eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days (MMDs) more than placebo in patients with 2-4 prior preventive migraine treatment failures. This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy of eptinezumab across the 24-week placebo-controlled period of the DELIVER study in subgroups defined by prior treatment failure type.

METHODS

DELIVER (NCT04418765) randomized adults with migraine to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo, administered intravenously every 12 weeks. Changes from baseline in MMDs and percentages of patients with ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMDs (≥ 50% migraine responder rates [MRRs]) were summarized in subgroups of patients defined by prior treatment failure type. Subgroups were not mutually exclusive and included patients for whom topiramate, beta blockers (metoprolol, propranolol), amitriptyline, and/or flunarizine had failed.

RESULTS

Across Weeks 1-12 in all subgroups, patients treated with eptinezumab experienced greater reductions from baseline in MMDs than those receiving placebo (reductions ranged from 4.5-5.5 vs 1.6-2.4, respectively), with larger reductions over Weeks 13-24. Similarly, ≥ 50% MRRs were consistently higher with eptinezumab than placebo and increased following a second infusion.

CONCLUSION

In all subgroups, regardless of prior preventive treatment failure type, eptinezumab demonstrated greater reductions in MMDs and higher MRRs compared with placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765).

Treatment patterns of galcanezumab versus standard of care preventive migraine medications over 24 months: a US retrospective claims study

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term (24-month) treatment patterns of patients initiating galcanezumab versus standard of care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments including anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, antidepressants, and onabotulinumtoxinA using administrative claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study, which used Optum de-identified Market Clarity data, included adults with migraine with ≥1 claim for galcanezumab or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 1, 2018 - March 31, 2020) and continuous database enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first claim). Baseline patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns were analyzed after 24-month follow-up, including adherence (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, discontinuation (≥60-day gap), restart, and treatment switch. Propensity score matching (1:1) was used to balance the galcanezumab and SOC cohorts.

RESULTS

The study included 2307 matched patient pairs with 24-month follow-up. The mean age across cohorts was 44.5 years (females: ∼87%). Patients in the galcanezumab versus SOC cohort demonstrated greater treatment adherence (PDC: 48% vs. 38%), with more patients considered adherent (PDC ≥80%: 26.6% vs. 20.7%) and persistent (322.1 vs. 236.4 d) (all p < .001). After 24-month follow-up, fewer galcanezumab-treated patients had discontinued compared with SOC-treated patients (80.1% vs. 84.7%; p < .001), of which 41.3% and 39.6% switched to a non-index medication, respectively. The most prevalent medication patients switched to in both cohorts was erenumab. Significantly greater proportions of patients who initiated galcanezumab versus SOC medications switched to fremanezumab (p < .001) and onabotulinumtoxinA (p = .016).

CONCLUSION

Patients who initiated galcanezumab for migraine prevention had higher treatment adherence and persistence compared with those who initiated SOC medications after 24-month follow-up.

Eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: a narrative review

Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), was recently approved in Europe for the prophylactic treatment of migraine in adults who have at least four migraine days a month. Eptinezumab is administered by intravenous infusion every 12 weeks. During recent months, a considerable amount of evidence from eptinezumab trials has been published. The aim of this review is to describe the existing evidence on the tolerability, safety and efficacy of eptinezumab in patients with migraine. Data from randomized (PROMISE-1, PROMISE-2, RELIEF and DELIVER) and open-label (PREVAIL) phase 3 clinical trials have demonstrated the favorable effect of eptinezumab in migraine symptoms from first day of treatment. These studies showed that eptinezumab results in an overall reduction in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs), increases in the ≥50% and ≥ 75% migraine responder rates (MRRs) and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures in both patients with episodic migraine (EM) and with chronic migraine (CM), including patients who failed previous preventive treatments. The RELIEF trial also showed that eptinezumab, within 2 h of administration, reduced headache pain, migraine-associated symptoms and acute medication use when administered during a migraine attack. Eptinezumab benefits manifested as early as day 1 after dosing and with the subsequent doses lasted up to at least 2 years. Treatment-emergent adverse events reported by ≥2% of patients included upper respiratory tract infection and fatigue. Current evidence demonstrates that eptinezumab has a potent, fast-acting, sustained migraine preventive effect in patients with EM and CM. Eptinezumab has also shown to be well tolerated, supporting its use in the treatment of patients with migraine and inclusion in the current migraine therapeutic options.

Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients with migraine: results from a retrospective database study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Clinical characteristics and treatment practice of patients with migraine in Japan in real-world setting have not been fully investigated. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using claims database to understand the clinical practice of migraine in recent years and to characterize patients potentially not managed well by current treatment options.

METHODS

Our study used data from the large claims database maintained by JMDC Inc. Patients with diagnosis of headache or migraine between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2022, were defined as the headache cohort, and those with migraine diagnosis and prescription of migraine treatments among the headache cohort were included in the migraine cohort. In the headache cohort, characteristics of medical facilities and status of imaging tests to distinguish secondary headache were examined. Treatment patterns and characteristics of patients potentially not managed well by acute/preventive treatment were described in migraine cohort.

RESULTS

In the headache cohort, 989,514 patients were included with 57.0% females and mean age of 40.3 years; 77.0% patients visited clinics (with ≤ 19 bed capacities) for their primary diagnosis, and 30.3% patients underwent imaging tests (computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance imaging). In the migraine cohort, 165,339 patients were included with 65.0% females and mean age of 38.8 years. In the migraine cohort, 95.6% received acute treatment while 20.8% received preventive treatment. Acetaminophen/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were most common (54.8%) as the initial prescription for migraine treatment followed by triptan (51.4%). First treatment prescription included preventive treatment in 15.6%, while the proportion increased to 82.2% in the fourth treatment prescription. Among patients with more than 12 months of follow-up, 3.7% had prescription patterns suggestive of risk of medication-overuse headache, and these patients were characterized by a higher percentage of females and a higher prevalence of comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that approximately one-fifth of the patients with migraine visiting medical facilities use preventive drugs. The presence of potential patients at risk of medication-overuse headache and the role of clinics in migraine treatment were also described.

Inhibition of persistent sodium current reduces spreading depression-evoked allodynia in a mouse model of migraine with aura

ABSTRACT

We investigated the efficacy of inhibiting persistent Na + currents (I NaP ) in acute rodent models of migraine with aura. Cortical spreading depression (SD) is a slow wave of neuronal and glial depolarization that underlies the migraine aura. Minimally invasive optogenetic SD (opto-SD) causes periorbital mechanical allodynia in mice, suggesting SD activates trigeminal nociceptors. Persistent Na + currents contribute to neuronal intrinsic excitability and have been implicated in peripheral and cortical excitation. We examined a preferential inhibitor of I NaP, GS-458967, on SD-induced periorbital allodynia, SD susceptibility, and formalin-induced peripheral pain. Periorbital mechanical allodynia was tested in male and female Thy1-ChR2-YFP mice after a single opto-SD event using manual von Frey monofilaments. GS-458967 (1 mg/kg, s.c.) or vehicle was dosed immediately after opto-SD induction, and allodynia was tested 1 hour later. The electrical SD threshold and KCl-induced SD frequency were examined in the cortex in male Sprague-Dawley rats after 1 hour pretreatment with GS-458967 (3 mg/kg, s.c.) or vehicle. Effects of GS-458967 (0.5-5 mg/kg, p.o.) on spontaneous formalin hind paw behavior and locomotion were also examined in male CD-1 mice. GS-458967 suppressed opto-SD-induced periorbital allodynia and decreased susceptibility to SD. GS-458967 also diminished early and late phase formalin-induced paw-licking behavior with early phase paw licking responding to lower doses. GS-458967 up to 3 mg/kg had no impact on locomotor activity. These data provide evidence that I NaP inhibition can reduce opto-SD-induced trigeminal pain behavior and support I NaP inhibition as an antinociceptive strategy for both abortive and preventive treatment of migraine.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Coadministered Atogepant and Topiramate in Healthy Participants: A Phase 1, Open-Label, Drug-Drug Interaction Study

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, and topiramate, a commonly used oral antiepileptic, are approved as preventive migraine treatments. Given the distinct mechanisms of action of these treatments, it is possible that they may be coprescribed for migraine. This open-label, single-center, 2-cohort, phase 1 trial evaluated the potential pharmacokinetic (PK) 2-way drug-drug interactions (DDIs), safety, and tolerability of atogepant and topiramate in healthy adults. Participants received atogepant 60 mg once daily and topiramate 100 mg twice daily. Cohort 1 (N = 28) evaluated the effect of topiramate on the PK of atogepant; cohort 2 (N = 25) evaluated the effect of atogepant on the PK of topiramate. Potential DDIs were assessed using geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals calculated for maximum plasma drug concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at steady state (AUC0-tau,ss ). Additional PK parameters were assessed. Atogepant AUC0-tau,ss and Cmax,ss decreased by 25% and 24%, respectively, with topiramate coadministration. Topiramate AUC0-tau,ss and Cmax,ss decreased by 5% and 6%, respectively, with atogepant coadministration. The 25% reduction in atogepant exposure when coadministered with topiramate is not considered to be clinically relevant and would not require dose adjustments.

Investigating the relationship between sleep and migraine in a global sample: a Bayesian cross-sectional approach

BACKGROUND

There is a bidirectional link between sleep and migraine, however causality is difficult to determine. This study aimed to investigate this relationship using data collected from a smartphone application.

METHODS

Self-reported data from 11,166 global users (aged 18-81 years, mean: 41.21, standard deviation: 11.49) were collected from the Migraine Buddy application (Healint Pte. Ltd.). Measures included: start and end times of sleep and migraine attacks, and pain intensity. Bayesian regression models were used to predict occurrence of a migraine attack the next day based on users' deviations from average sleep, number of sleep interruptions, and hours slept the night before in those reporting ≥ 8 and < 25 migraine attacks on average per month. Conversely, we modelled whether attack occurrence and pain intensity predicted hours slept that night.

RESULTS

There were 724 users (129 males, 412 females, 183 unknown, mean age = 41.88 years, SD = 11.63), with a mean monthly attack frequency of 9.94. More sleep interruptions (95% Highest Density Interval (95%HDI [0.11 - 0.21]) and deviation from a user's mean sleep (95%HDI [0.04 - 0.08]) were significant predictors of a next day attack. Total hours slept was not a significant predictor (95%HDI [-0.04 - 0.04]). Pain intensity, but not attack occurrence was a positive predictor of hours slept.

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep fragmentation and deviation from typical sleep are the main drivers of the relationship between sleep and migraine. Having a migraine attack does not predict sleep duration, yet the pain associated with it does. This study highlights sleep as crucial in migraine management.

Burden of migraine with acute medication overuse or psychiatric comorbidities and treatment with CGRP pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies: A review

Migraine is a complex and often debilitating neurological disease that affects more than 1 billion people worldwide. It is characterized by moderate-to-intense, throbbing headache attacks that are worsened by activity and is associated with nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound. Migraine, ranked the second leading cause of years lived with disability by the World Health Organization, can diminish patients' quality of life and bring significant personal and economic burden. Furthermore, migraine patients with a history of acute medication overuse (AMO) or psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression or anxiety, may experience even greater impairment and burden, and their migraine may be more difficult-to-treat. Appropriate treatment of migraine is essential to reduce this burden and improve patient outcomes, especially for those with AMO or psychiatric comorbidities. There are several available preventive treatment options for migraine, though many of these are not migraine-specific and may have limited efficacy and/or poor tolerability. The calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, and monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed as specific preventive treatments for migraine. Four of these monoclonal antibodies have been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine after demonstrating favorable safety and efficacy profiles. These treatments offer substantial benefits for migraine patients, including those with AMO or common psychiatric comorbidities, by reducing monthly headache days and migraine days, days of acute medication use, and disability measures, as well as improving quality of life.

Use of Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Strategies by Community-Dwelling Adults to Manage Migraine: A Systematic Review

Migraine is a prevalent disease associated with high levels of disability and is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. This systematic literature review aimed to identify the types of pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies that community-dwelling adults report using to manage migraine. A systematic literature review of relevant databases, grey literature, websites, and journals was conducted from 1 January 1989 to 21 December 2021. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Data were extracted on migraine management strategies and categorized as opioid and non-opioid medications and medical, physical, psychological, or self-initiated strategies. A total of 20 studies were included. The sample sizes ranged from 138 to 46,941, with a mean age of 34.7 to 79.9 years. The data were typically collected using self-administered questionnaires (nine studies), interviews (five studies), online surveys (three studies), paper-based surveys (two studies), and a retrospective database (one study). Community-dwelling adults with migraine reported they primarily used medications, specifically triptans (range 9-73%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (range 13-85%) to manage migraine. Except for medical strategies, the use of other non-pharmacological strategies was low. Common non-pharmacological strategies included consulting physicians (range 14-79%) and heat or cold therapy (35%).

Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons of the tolerability and safety of migraine preventive treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway are lacking. This study aimed to compare the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and gepants in migraine prevention.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) and gepants (atogepant, rimegepant) in migraine prevention was performed. Primary outcomes were treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and individual adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 19 randomized controlled trials, comprising 14,584 patients. Atogepant 120 mg (OR 2.22, 95% CI [1.26, 3.91]) and galcanezumab 240 mg (OR 1.63, 95% CI [1.33, 2.00]) showed the largest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events compared to placebo. While eptinezumab 30 mg had greater odds of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR 2.62, 95% CI [1.03,6.66]). No significant differences in serious adverse events were found between active treatments and placebo. Eptinezumab was associated with the lowest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events compared to placebo, whereas erenumab was associated with the lowest odds of any adverse events and quarterly fremanezumab with the lowest odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway and gepants are a safe and well tolerated option for migraine prevention.

Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study

OBJECTIVE

HER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication.

METHODS

Post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50-100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p < 0.001). In the last 3 months, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving erenumab (60.3%) achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (43.3%; p < 0.001). Patients receiving erenumab demonstrated significantly greater reductions in MMD during the last 3 months from baseline versus those receiving topiramate (- 6.13 vs - 4.90; 95% CI: - 1.87 to - 0.61; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated significantly superior efficacy of erenumab versus topiramate in achieving a ≥50% reduction in MMD with an early onset of efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539 .

Impact of fremanezumab on disability outcomes in patients with episodic and chronic migraine: a pooled analysis of phase 3 studies

Background

Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. Although many preventive treatments reduce migraine frequency and severity, it is unclear whether these treatments reduce migraine-related disability in a clinically meaningful way. This pooled analysis evaluated the ability of fremanezumab to reduce migraine-related disability, based on responses and shifts in severity in patient-reported disability outcomes.

Methods

This pooled analysis included 3 double-blind phase 3 trials (HALO EM, HALO CM, FOCUS) in which patients with episodic or chronic migraine were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to quarterly or monthly fremanezumab or matched placebo for 12 weeks. Migraine-related disability was assessed using the 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaires. A clinically meaningful improvement in disability was defined per American Headache Society guidelines: for HIT-6, a ≥ 5-point reduction; for MIDAS, a ≥ 5-point reduction when baseline score was 11 to 20 or ≥ 30% reduction when baseline score was > 20. Proportions of patients who demonstrated shifts in severity for each outcome were also evaluated.

Results

For patients with baseline MIDAS scores of 11 to 20 (n = 234), significantly higher proportions achieved 5-point reductions from baseline in MIDAS scores with fremanezumab (quarterly, 71%; monthly, 70%) compared with placebo (49%; both P ≤ 0.01). For patients with baseline MIDAS scores of > 20 (n = 1266), proportions achieving ≥30% reduction from baseline in MIDAS scores were also significantly higher with fremanezumab (quarterly, 69%; monthly, 79%) compared with placebo (58%; both P < 0.001). For HIT-6 scores, proportions of patients achieving 5-point reductions from baseline were significantly higher with fremanezumab (quarterly, 53%; monthly, 55%) compared with placebo (39%; both P < 0.0001). Proportions of patients with shifts of 1 to 3 grades down in MIDAS or HIT-6 disability severity were significantly greater with quarterly and monthly fremanezumab compared with placebo (all P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Fremanezumab demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in disability severity in this pooled analysis.

Trial registrations

HALO CM, NCT02621931; HALO EM, NCT02629861; FOCUS, NCT03308968.

Persistence, use of resources and costs in patients under migraine preventive treatment: the PERSEC study

Background

Migraine represents a serious burden for national health systems. However, preventive treatment is not optimally applied to reduce the severity and frequency of headache attacks and the related expenses. Our aim was to assess the persistence to traditional migraine prophylaxis available in Spain and its relationship with the healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs.

Methods

Retrospective observational study with retrospective cohort design of individuals with migraine treated with oral preventive medication for the first time from 01/01/2016 to 30/06/2018. One-year follow-up information was retrieved from the Big-Pac™ database. According to their one-year persistence to oral prophylaxis, two study groups were created and describe regarding HRU and healthcare direct and indirect costs using 95% confidence intervals (CI). The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Patients were considered persistent if they continued on preventive treatment until the end of the study or switched medications within 60 days or less since the last prescription. Non-persistent were those who permanently discontinued or re-initiated a treatment after 60 days.

Results

Seven thousand eight hundred sixty-six patients started preventive treatment (mean age (SD) 48.2 (14.8) and 80.4% women), of whom 2,545 (32.4%) were persistent for 6 months and 2,390 (30.4%) for 12 months. Most used first-line preventive treatments were antidepressants (3,642; 46.3%) followed by antiepileptics (1,738; 22.1%) and beta-blockers (1,399; 17.8%). The acute treatments prescribed concomitantly with preventives were NSAIDs (4,530; 57.6%), followed by triptans (2,217; 28.2%). First-time preventive treatment prescribers were mostly primary care physicians (6,044; 76.8%) followed by neurologists (1,221; 15.5%). Non-persistent patients required a higher number of primary care visits (mean difference (95%CI): 3.0 (2.6;3.4)) and days of sick leave (2.7 (0.8;4.5)) than the persistent ones. The mean annual expenditure was €622 (415; 829) higher in patients who not persisted on migraine prophylactic treatment.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed a high discontinuation rate for migraine prophylaxis which is related to an increase in HRU and costs for non-persistent patients. These results suggest that the treatment adherence implies not only a clinical benefit but also a reduction in HRU and costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01448-2.

Neurogenic inflammation as a novel treatment target for chronic pain syndromes

Chronic pain syndrome is a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by several pathological mechanisms. One in five adults in Europe may experience chronic pain. In addition to the individual burden, chronic pain has a significant societal impact because of work and school absences, loss of work, early retirement, and high social and healthcare costs. Several anti-inflammatory treatments are available for patients with inflammatory or autoimmune diseases to control their symptoms, including pain. However, patients with degenerative chronic pain conditions, some with 10-fold or more elevated incidence relative to these manageable diseases, have few long-term pharmacological treatment options, limited mainly to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids. For this review, we performed multiple PubMed searches using keywords such as "pain," "neurogenic inflammation," "NGF," "substance P," "nociception," "BDNF," "inflammation," "CGRP," "osteoarthritis," and "migraine." Many treatments, most with limited scientific evidence of efficacy, are available for the management of chronic pain through a trial-and-error approach. Although basic science and pre-clinical pain research have elucidated many biomolecular mechanisms of pain and identified promising novel targets, little of this work has translated into better clinical management of these conditions. This state-of-the-art review summarizes concepts of chronic pain syndromes and describes potential novel treatment strategies.

Early onset of efficacy with erenumab for migraine prevention in Japanese patients: Analysis of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

PURPOSE

In two 24-week migraine prevention studies in Japan, erenumab was associated with significantly greater reductions in migraine frequency versus placebo over Weeks 13-24 (primary endpoint). This post hoc analysis evaluated the onset of efficacy within the first 4 weeks after the initiation of erenumab from the 24-week double-blind periods of these studies.

METHODS

Placebo-adjusted differences in least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in weekly migraine days (WMD) were assessed weekly in each study and by migraine type (episodic (EM]/chronic [CM]) (Study 20170609).

RESULTS

A total of 407 patients from Study 20120309 (70 mg: N = 135; 140 mg: N = 136; placebo: N = 136) and 261 patients from Study 20170609 ([EM] 70 mg: N = 78; placebo: N = 81; [CM] 70 mg: N = 52; placebo: N = 50) were included. For Study 20120309, onset of efficacy was observed as early as Week 1 in favor of erenumab versus placebo. Placebo-adjusted differences in LSM (95% confidence interval [CI]) change from baseline in WMD at Week 1 were -0.38 (-0.71 to -0.05; p = .022) and -0.49 (-0.82 to -0.16; p = .004) in favor of erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively. For Study 20170609, significant placebo-adjusted differences were observed with erenumab 70 mg at Week 1 in patients with EM (LSM [95% CI]: -0.55 [-0.97 to -0.12; p = .012]), and at Week 2 in patients with CM (LSM [95% CI]: -0.81 [-1.53 to -0.09; p = .028]) and for the overall population (LSM [95% CI]: -0.71 [-1.09 to -0.33; p < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab treatment significantly reduced WMD compared with placebo. Onset of erenumab efficacy occurred as early as Week 1 in patients with migraine.

Reducing the physical, social, and emotional impact of episodic migraine: Results from erenumab STRIVE and ARISE phase III randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in the functional impact of migraine following treatment with erenumab, as measured by the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ).

BACKGROUND

The MFIQ, a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) measuring the impact of migraine on four domains (physical function, social function, and emotional function [PF, SF, and EF]; usual activities [UAs]) and a single item assessing overall impact on UA, was included in phase III trials evaluating erenumab 70 and 140 mg monthly for migraine prevention among people with episodic migraine (EM).

METHODS

In the ARISE study, 577 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab 70 mg or placebo. In the STRIVE study, 955 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in MFIQ scores (with associated 95% confidence interval [CI]) were assessed for each active treatment versus placebo.

RESULTS

In ARISE, greater reductions from baseline to month 3 were observed for 70 mg versus placebo for PF (LSM [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.4 to -0.1]; p = 0.046) and EF (-4.0 [-7.3 to -0.7]; p = 0.019) domain scores. In STRIVE, between-group differences also reflected reductions from baseline to the average of months 4-6 that favored erenumab on all four MFIQ domain scores. Reductions in impact for 70 mg compared to placebo were -4.3 (95% CI: -6.8 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for PF, -4.0 (-6.3 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for UA, -3.7 (-6.1 to -1.2; p = 0.003) for SF, and -5.3 (-7.9 to -2.6; p < 0.001) for EF domain scores. Improvements were also observed for 140 mg versus placebo with between-group differences of -5.7 (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.2; p < 0.001) in PF, -5.1 (-7.5 to -2.8; p < 0.001) in UA, -5.0 (-7.4 to -2.6; p < 0.001) in SF, and -7.2 (-9.9 to -4.5; p < 0.001) in EF domain scores. There were also greater improvements in the overall impact on UA score for 70 mg (LSM [95% CI]: -4.3 [-7.0 to -1.7]; p = 0.001) and 140 mg (-5.3 [-8.5 to -3.2]; p < 0.001) versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The MFIQ measures the frequency of impacts and level of difficulty on multiple functional domains that provide a more complete picture of the effects of migraine. MFIQ scores showed that in comparison with placebo, patients treated with erenumab had greater reductions in the functional impact of migraine, providing insight into treatment benefits that extend beyond improvements in clinical status and health-related quality of life previously reported based on clinical end points and other PROs.

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.

Migraine Characteristics, Comorbidities, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Associated Costs of Early Users of Erenumab in the USA: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Administrative Claims Data

INTRODUCTION

Erenumab is indicated for migraine preventive treatment in adults. The objective of this study was to provide descriptive information on real-world use of erenumab including patient profile and treatment patterns.

METHODS

We completed a retrospective review of US data (through May 2019) from the IBM MarketScan^® Early View Databases, identifying adult patients newly treated with erenumab with a migraine claim in the year prior to first erenumab claim (index) and at least 1 year of continuous pre-index medical and pharmacy insurance coverage, to assess pre- and post-erenumab migraine characteristics, comorbidities, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs. All data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 9753 patients met inclusion criteria. The average (SD) age was 46 (12) years, 85% of patients were female, and 64% had at least one claim for chronic migraine; 70% of erenumab users had an initial dose of 70 mg; 77% of patients in the 6-month follow-up sample (n = 4437) remained on their initial erenumab dose. Persistence at 6-month follow-up was 47.3% with a mean (95% CI) proportion of days covered of 0.68 (0.67, 0.68). In the post-erenumab period, claims for comorbidities of non-migraine headaches and anxiety were reduced and there was a shift to decreased use of acute and preventive medications. Reductions in overall use and associated cost of healthcare resources such as inpatient hospitalization and outpatient office visits were minimal, with slightly more pronounced reductions in the subgroup of patients that were persistent to erenumab.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed reductions in claims for important migraine characteristics, comorbidities, and a shift to decreased use of acute and preventive migraine medications-observations indicative of the real-world effectiveness of erenumab. Further examination is required as persistence to erenumab, which may be influenced by dose titration, appears to be an important factor in changes to healthcare resource utilization and costs.

Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial

BACKGROUND

We compared the tolerability and efficacy of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, to topiramate for migraine prophylaxis in adults.

METHODS

HER-MES was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial conducted in 82 sites in Germany. Patients with ≥4 migraine days per month and naïve to study drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus topiramate placebo (erenumab group) or oral topiramate at the individual dose with optimal efficacy (50-100 mg/day) plus erenumab placebo (topiramate group).The primary endpoint was medication discontinuation due to an adverse event during the double-blind phase. The proportion of patients that achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days during the last 3 months of the double-blind phase was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomised (from 22 February 2019 to 29 July, 2020) and 95.1% completed the study. In the erenumab group, 10.6% discontinued medication due to adverse events compared to 38.9% in the topiramate group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.27; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline with erenumab (55.4% vs. 31.2%; odds ratio 2.76; 95% confidence interval 2.06-3.71; p < 0.001). No new safety signals occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab demonstrated a favourable tolerability and efficacy profile compared to topiramate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03828539.

Understanding the migraine treatment landscape prior to the introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors: Results from the Assessment of TolerabiliTy and Effectiveness in MigrAINe Patients using Preventive Treatment (ATTAIN) study

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors were introduced in the United States (US) in 2018. To understand the changing patterns of preventive treatment following the introduction of these new agents, we must first characterize the patterns which preceded their introduction.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the burden, unmet need, and treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating preventive migraine medications before the introduction of CGRP inhibitors in the US.

METHODS

Between March 2016 and October 2017, we enrolled episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients initiating or changing preventive treatment at primary care or neurology clinic visits in the US, in a real-world observational study using a prospective cohort design. At baseline and monthly thereafter for 6 months, we collected data from study sites and patients on migraine frequency, treatment modifications, migraine impact on functioning, and work productivity for a descriptive analysis of migraine patient experience and treatment patterns.

RESULTS

From the sample of 234 completers, 118 had EM (50.4%) and 116 had CM (49.6%). Mean age at enrollment was 41 years (SD = 12) and mean age at first migraine diagnosis was 22 years (SD = 11). Most participants were females (n = 204/234; 87.2%) and white (n = 178/234; 76.1%). The majority (n = 164/234; 70.1%) had not used preventive migraine treatment in the 5 years prior to enrollment (treatment naïve). At baseline, mean monthly migraine days were 9.6 days (SD = 5.0) for the preventive treatment naïve group and 12.4 days (SD = 7.0) for treatment experienced patients. The majority had severe Migraine Disability Assessment (Grade IV, total score ≥21), including 67.1% (n = 110/164) of the preventive treatment naïve and 77.1% (n = 54/70) of the preventive treatment experienced patients. Headache Impact Test total scores indicating severe impairment (score >59) occurred in 88.4% (n = 145/164) of the treatment naïve and 88.6% (n = 62/70) of treatment experienced patients. Mean work productivity loss as measured by the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire in the subsample of employed patients was 53.3% loss. The most used acute medications at baseline were nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (n = 124/234; 53.0%), acetaminophen-based products (n = 112/234; 47.9%), and triptans (n = 105/234; 44.9%). The most commonly initiated preventive treatments were topiramate (n = 100/234; 42.7%), tricyclic antidepressants (n = 39/234; 16.7%), beta-blockers (n = 26/234; 11.1%), and onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 24/234; 10.3%). Over the 6-month follow-up period, almost half of patients (n = 116/234, 49.6%) modified their preventive treatment and discontinued treatment (n = 88/312 total modifications; 28.2%) or modified their pattern of use by increasing, decreasing, or skipping doses (n = 224/312 total modifications; 71.8%), often without seeking medical advice. Avoiding side effects was the main reason reported among patients who discontinued (n = 52/88; 59.1%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 37/89; 41.6%), and skipped doses (n = 29/86; 33.7%). Perceived lack of efficacy was another frequent reason reported among those who discontinued (n = 20/88; 22.7%), decreased frequency or dose (n = 15/89; 16.9%), and skipped doses (n = 18/86; 20.9%). Despite initiation of preventive treatment and improvements observed in number of headache and migraine days, migraine patients continued to experience substantial disability, headache impact, and reduced productivity throughout the 6-month follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior to 2018, the burden of migraine was high for patients initiating preventive treatments. Despite having more than 9 days of migraine per month on average, the majority (70.1%) of patients initiating prevention had been treatment naïve, indicating underuse of preventive treatments. The preventive treatments used in this study were poorly tolerated and were reported by patients to lack efficacy, resulting in suboptimal adherence. The high discontinuation rates suggest that the preventive medications being offered during the period of the study did not meet the treatment needs of patients. In addition, the decisions by about half of patients to alter their prescribed treatment plan without consulting their provider can pose substantial health risks. These findings pertain to the broad set of preventive treatments initiated in this study and do not support inferences about individual preventive treatments, due to limitations in sample size. These findings suggest the need for more effective and better tolerated preventive treatment options.