Effect of erenumab on functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful: results from the LIBERTY study

Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab in Participants With Episodic Migraine in Whom 2-4 Prior Preventive Treatments Had Failed: LIBERTY 3-Year Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The LIBERTY study assessed the efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine (EM) and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. The results have been presented after 3 years of erenumab exposure in its open-label extension phase (OLEP).

METHODS

Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could enter the OLEP and receive 140 mg of erenumab once monthly for 3 years. The main outcomes included the proportion of participants achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs), the mean MMD change from baseline, and tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

Overall, 240/246 (97.6%) participants entered the OLEP and 168/240 (70.0%) completed the study (85/118 continuing erenumab [n = 1 lost during follow-up]; 83/122 switching from placebo [n = 2 lost during follow-up]). In the overall population, 79/151 participants (52.3%) with valid data points achieved ≥50% reduction in MMDs at week 168 (i.e., responders). In the continuous erenumab group, 35/117 participants (29.9%) were ≥50% responders at week 12 of the DBTP and 26/35 (74.3%) remained ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of the 82/117 participants (70.1%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the continuous erenumab group, 17/82 (20.7%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits. Of 103/120 participants (85.8%) not achieving responder status at week 12 in the placebo-erenumab group, 42/103 (40.8%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half of OLEP visits after switching to erenumab. Overall, the mean (SD) MMD change from baseline showed sustained improvement over 3 years (-4.4 [3.9] days at week 168). The most common treatment-emergent AEs (per 100 person-years) were nasopharyngitis (28.8), influenza (7.5), and back pain (5.8). Overall, 9.6% (3.9 per 100 person-years) and 6.7% (2.7 per 100 person-years) of participants reported events of treatment-emergent hypertension and constipation, respectively. The safety and tolerability profile remained consistent with earlier studies.

DISCUSSION

Erenumab (140 mg) showed sustained efficacy over 3 years in participants with EM and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures. No new safety signals were observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03096834.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Effects of eptinezumab on self-reported work productivity in adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failure in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled DELIVER study

BACKGROUND

The multinational phase 3b DELIVER trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of eptinezumab for migraine prevention in patients with prior preventive treatment failures across 17 countries. In the placebo-controlled portion, eptinezumab relative to placebo demonstrated greater reductions in migraine and headache frequency, migraine and headache severity, and acute medication use. The objective of this report is to describe the effects of eptinezumab on self-reported work productivity in the placebo-controlled portion of DELIVER.

METHODS

Adults 18-75 years of age with migraine and documented evidence of 2 to 4 prior preventive treatment failures in the past 10 years were randomized to receive eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo intravenously (IV) every 12 weeks. The Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire specific to migraine (WPAI:M), which comprises 6 items (4 of which are completed by currently employed patients only), was administered every 4 weeks. Changes from baseline in subscores (absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment) were calculated based on item responses. A mixed model for repeated measures was used to analyze changes from baseline in WPAI:M subscores.

RESULTS

A total of 890 adults (mean age, 43.8 years) were included in the full analysis set (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 299; eptinezumab 300 mg, n = 293; placebo, n = 298). Mean WPAI:M subscores at baseline indicated a negative impact of migraine attacks on work productivity and ability to complete normal daily activities. Eptinezumab improved WPAI:M subscores more than placebo at all assessment points throughout the study. Mean changes from baseline in self-reported work productivity loss were -19.5, -24.0, and -9.7 at Week 12; and -22.6, -20.2, and -7.2 at Week 24 (all P < 0.001 vs placebo) for eptinezumab 100 mg, eptinezumab 300 mg, and placebo, respectively. Mean changes from baseline in activity impairment were -21.3, -23.8, and -11.2 at Week 12; and -24.7, -22.6, and -10.1 at Week 24 (all P < 0.0001 vs placebo). Similarly, mean improvements in absenteeism and presenteeism were greater in the eptinezumab groups than in the groups receiving placebo at all timepoints (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In adults with migraine and prior preventive treatment failure, eptinezumab 100 mg and 300 mg IV every 12 weeks improved absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, and activity impairment more than placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04418765 ); EudraCT (Identifier: 2019-004497-25) ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-004497-25/PL ). Eptinezumab improves self-reported work productivity in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures.

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies and Antagonists in Migraine: Current Evidence and Rationale

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37 amino-acid neuropeptide found mostly in peptidergic sensory C-fibers, has been suggested to be implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological disorders seen in medical practice, affecting almost 16% of the US population. While previously thought to be a vascular condition, migraine attacks are the result of neurogenic inflammation and peripheral/central sensitization through dysfunctional activation of the trigeminovascular system. To date, two classes of therapeutic agents have been developed to interrupt the function of CGRP: CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule antagonists (gepants). There are currently four CGRP-targeted mAbs and three gepants that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of migraine. Multiple phase II and III studies have established the efficacies and tolerability of these treatments. Previously, we reviewed the fundamental role of CGRP in migraine pathogenesis. Here, we discuss in depth the clinical evidence (randomized controlled trials and real-world studies), safety, and tolerability of CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants for treating migraine.

Migraine Prevention with Erenumab: Focus on Patient Selection, Perspectives and Outcomes

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor suitable for episodic and chronic migraine prevention. Randomized clinical trials proved the superiority of erenumab to placebo in a strictly selected population, while real-world studies confirmed treatment efficacy in more severe forms of disease – most patients suffered from chronic migraine with medication overuse headache, had prior treatment failures, and long disease duration. According to guidelines, anti-CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies should be reserved to patients who failed or have contraindication to several classes of preventive treatments. However, their ease of use, tolerability and efficacy make these monoclonal antibodies ideally suitable for most patients with migraine; cost-effectiveness needs to be considered when looking at expanding current prescription criteria. Also, data from open label extensions of randomized control trials confirmed sustained benefits of prolonged treatment up to 5 consecutive years without significant risk of adverse events. Further studies will provide insights on optimal treatment duration to achieve migraine remission and predictors of treatment response. In the present work, we aimed at reviewing design and results of the main studies on erenumab and discussing treatment use in the current migraine prevention scenario; we also summarized the main ongoing research projects and provided clinical perspectives for the future.

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.

Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate individual and group long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) for whom 2-4 prior preventatives had failed.

METHODS

Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could continue into an open-label extension phase (OLEP) receiving erenumab 140 mg monthly for up to 3 years. Main outcomes assessed at week 112 were: ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) as group responder rate and individual responder rates, MMD change from baseline, safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Overall 240/246 (97.6%) entered the OLEP (118 continuing erenumab, 122 switching from placebo). In total 181/240 (75.4%) reached 112 weeks, 24.6% discontinued, mainly due to lack of efficacy (44.0%), participant decision (37.0%) and adverse events (AEs; 12.0%). The ≥50% responder rate was 57.2% (99/173) at 112 weeks. Of ≥50% responders at the end of the DBTP, 36/52 (69.2%) remained responders at ≥50% and 22/52 (42.3%) at >80% of visits. Of the non-responders at the end of the DBTP, 60/185 (32.4%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half the visits and 24/185 (13.0%) converted to ≥50% responders in >80% of visits. Change from baseline at 112 weeks in mean (SD) MMD was -4.2 (5.0) days. Common AEs (≥10%) were nasopharyngitis, influenza and back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy was sustained over 112 weeks in individuals with difficult-to-treat EM for whom 2-4 prior migraine preventives had failed. Erenumab treatment was safe and well tolerated, in-line with previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03096834.

CGRP and CGRP-receptor as targets of migraine therapy: Brain Prize-2021

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent primary headache with an unclear pathomechanism. During the last 40 years numerous hypotheses have arisen, among them the theory of the trigeminovascular system is the primary one. It serves as a skeleton in successful preclinical studies and in the development of effective therapeutic options for migraine headache.

OBJECTIVE

The Brain Prize (awarded annually by the Lundbeck Foundation) is the most prestigious tribute in neuroscience. The winners in 2021 were Lars Edvinsson, Peter Goadsby, Michael Moskowitz and Jes Olesen. They are the fathers of the migraine pathomechanism which led to revolutionary new treatments. This review summarizes their landmark findings.

METHODS

Data related to this topic were reviewed from PubMed records published between 1979 and May 2021. Searches were based on preclinical and clinical studies in the covered field. The findings were listed in chronological order. From a therapeutic perspective, only randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis were discussed.

RESULTS

The calcitonin gene-related peptide-related pathogenesis of migraine is based on the activation of the trigeminovascular system. The therapeutic triad for migraine is triptans, gepants and calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies.

CONCLUSION

In the past 40 years, the systematic work of leading headache scientists has resulted in robust theoretical and therapeutic knowledge in the preclinical and clinical study of migraine.

Assessment of the Effect of Erenumab on Efficacy and Quality-of-Life Parameters in a Cohort of Migraine Patients With Treatment Failure in Cyprus

Erenumab is the first human monoclonal antibody to be approved as a selective therapy for migraine prophylaxis in adults. This study assessed, in a real-world setting, the efficacy of erenumab and its impact on the quality of life (QoL) of Cypriot migraine patients who had failed several treatments in the past. Erenumab was prescribed as a stand-alone or as an add-on therapy to 16 patients with chronic migraine. The first component of the study examined migraine parameters before and after erenumab therapy and included an interim 3-month subjective assessment. In the second component, the patients were asked to complete the validated Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire—Version 2.1 (MSQ V2.1) during the last month of their individual treatment as a measure of the QoL. The results showed a statistically significant improvement in almost all migraine parameters following erenumab treatment. In the 3-month-interval assessment, 81.3% of the patients reported an improvement in their mental well-being, anxiety, and depression levels, with more than 80% of the patients reporting an improvement in almost all assessed migraine parameters. MSQ V2.1 indicated a good health status in all three domains (mean values > 60 on a scale 0–100), with the “role function preventative” domain having the highest health scores (85). Over a period of 6 months, erenumab was safe, well-tolerated, and effective in preventing migraine symptoms and improving HR-QoL. We conclude that this novel medication, which is not yet part of the national formulary in Cyprus, may be a cost-effective solution in reducing the disease burden of chronic migraine.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting CGRP: From Clinical Studies to Real-World Evidence-What Do We Know So Far?

Now more than ever is the time of monoclonal antibody use in neurology. In headaches, disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments existed only for symptomatic management of migraines (i.e., triptans), while the standard prophylactic anti-migraine treatments consist of non-specific and repurposed drugs that share limited safety profiles and high risk for interactions with other medications, resulting in rundown adherence rates. Recent advances in headache science have increased our understanding of the role of calcitonin gene relate peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) pathways in cephalic pain neurotransmission and peripheral or central sensitization, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecules targeting these neuropeptides or their receptors. Large scale randomized clinical trials confirmed that inhibition of the CGRP system attenuates migraine, while the PACAP mediated nociception is still under scientific and clinical investigation. In this review, we provide the latest clinical evidence for the use of anti-CGRP in migraine prevention with emphasis on efficacy and safety outcomes from Phase III and real-world studies.

Indirect Comparison of Topiramate and Monoclonal Antibodies Against CGRP or Its Receptor for the Prophylaxis of Episodic Migraine: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head comparator trials between first-line oral migraine preventatives and the new monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have not been published to date.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to indirectly compare the clinical efficacy and safety of mAbs against CGRP or its receptor (CGRPR) and topiramate in episodic migraine prophylaxis using meta-analysis.

METHODS

We included controlled trials testing efficacy and safety of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, and topiramate in adults diagnosed with episodic migraine. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from January 2000 to November 2020. We used the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the risk of bias and report pooled mean effects (mean difference and risk ratio) as estimated in a random effect model. For efficacy analysis, we determined the reduction of monthly migraine days (MMDs), reduction of days with acute medication (AMDs), and 50% responder rates (50% RR). For safety, we determined adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥ 2% of study participants and the number of patients who discontinue treatment due to AEs (DAEs). The number needed to treat (NNT) and to harm (NNH) were estimated as well as the likelihood to help or harm (LLH).

RESULTS

We included 13 trials involving 7557 patients: three trials with erenumab, two trials with galcanezumab, two trials with fremanezumab, one trial with eptinezumab, and five trials with topiramate, for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine in adults. The placebo-subtracted reduction (pooled mean difference) of MMDs were - 1.55 (95% CI - 1.86 to - 1.24; active drug n = 3326 vs placebo n = 2219, 8 studies) for the CGRP(R) mAb and - 1.11 (95% CI - 1.62 to - 0.59; active drug n = 1032 vs placebo n = 543, 4 studies) for topiramate (p for subgroup difference = 0.15). 'Cognitive' and 'sensory & pain'-related adverse events occurred more often in patients treated with topiramate compared with those treated with a CGRP(R) mAb (p for subgroup difference 0.03 and < 0.001, respectively). Based on the 50% RR and DAE, the NNT, NNH, and LHH for the CGRP(R) mAbs were 6, 130, and 24.3:1, respectively. For topiramate, these values were 7, 9, and 1.8:1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of CGRP(R) mAbs to reduce migraine days does not differ from topiramate. However, the safety profile is in favor of the CGRP(R) mAbs, with a higher likelihood to help than to harm compared with topiramate. The diversity of endpoint determination and the heterogeneity between studies for some endpoints cause some limitations for this study.