Migraine evolution after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibody prophylaxis: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

Impact of multiple treatment cycles with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine course: focus on discontinuation periods. Insights from the multicenter, prospective, I-GRAINE study

OBJECTIVES

While a single 12-month treatment cycle (TrC) with anti-CGRP mAbs is not disease-modifying for most patients, there is limited understanding of the effects of multiple TrCs on migraine course. We evaluated whether a second TrC might modify the migraine course by comparing the occurrence of migraine relapse after discontinuation of the second TrC to that following the cessation of the first TrC.

METHODS

In a real-life, multicenter, prospective study we considered all consecutive patients diagnosed with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) with > 3 treatment failures and treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 2 consecutive 12-month TrCs who were responders at week 12. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) for HFEM or monthly headache days (MHD) for CM at the first month of treatment discontinuation after the second TrC (D2) compared to the first TrC (D1). Secondary endpoints included variations in monthly analgesic medications (MAM), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates, and relapse from episodic migraine to CM and from no-medication overuse (MO) to MO at D2 vs. D1.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seventy-eight patients completed two 12-month TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs. At D2, patients experienced a significant reduction in MMD (- 0.6, p = 0.028), MHD (- 2.6, p < 0.001), monthly analgesic medications (- 2.0, p < 0.001), and HIT-6 score (- 2.2, p < 0.001) compared to D1, indicating improved effectiveness. The ≥ 50% response rate at weeks 45-48 during the first TrC was 95.5%, while at weeks 45-48 of the second TrC was 99.4%. Corresponding rates at D1 was 20.2% whereas at D2 was 51.6% (p < 0.0001). No statistical difference emerged in ≥ 75% and 100% responders. The relapse rate from episodic migraine to CM at D2 was lower than at D1 (12.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.0002) Fewer patients experienced relapse from no-MO to MO at D2 compared to D1 (29.5% vs 68.7%; p = 0.00001).

DISCUSSION

A second TrC with anti-CGRP mAbs demonstrated clinical improvements compared to the first one, as indicated by a milder migraine relapse at D2 compared to D1. Multiple TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs could progressively modify migraine evolution by reducing CGRP-dependent neuroinflammatory nociceptive inputs to the brain.

Long-Term Outcome After Discontinuation of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting agents are potential candidates for disease-modifying migraine drugs. However, most studies on CGRP-targeting agents have assessed efficacy outcomes rather than long-term effects after discontinuation. This review aimed to synthesize and scrutinize the latest clinical data on the outcomes after the discontinuation of CGRP-targeting therapy in patients with episodic and chronic migraine, with a particular focus on chronic migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Real-world studies involving patients with migraine have reported consistent findings of worsened headache frequency and quality of life after the discontinuation of CGRP monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). Although many patients maintain improvements for up to 4 months after discontinuation compared to baseline (before starting CGRP mAbs), no studies have evaluated the effects of stopping treatment for > 5 months, which is the five-half-life of CGRP mAbs. Several studies have suggested that patients treated with CGRP receptor mAbs experience more rapid deterioration than those treated with CGRP ligand mAbs after discontinuing CGRP mAbs. The results of real-world studies suggest that for many patients with migraine, the benefits of CGRP mAbs diminish months after discontinuation. Therefore, anti-CGRP therapies may not be considered disease-modifying. However, the comprehensive assessment of the disease-modifying potential of these drugs requires studies with extended treatment and cessation durations.

An economic evaluation of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine in the UK, with consideration for natural history and work productivity

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disease with a substantial societal burden due to lost productivity. From a societal perspective, we assessed the cost-effectiveness of eptinezumab for the preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

An individual patient simulation of discrete competing events was developed to evaluate eptinezumab cost-effectiveness compared to best supportive care for adults in the United Kingdom with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and prior failure of ≥ 3 preventive migraine treatments. Individuals with sampled baseline characteristics were created to represent this population, which comprised dedicated episodic and chronic migraine subpopulations. Clinical efficacy, utility, and work productivity inputs were based on results from the DELIVER randomised controlled trial (NCT04418765). Timing of natural history events and treatment holidays-informed by the literature-were simulated to unmask any natural improvement of the disease unrelated to treatment. The primary outcomes were monthly migraine days, migraine-associated costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and net monetary benefit, each evaluated over a 5-year time horizon from 2020. Secondary analyses explored a lifetime horizon and an alternative treatment stopping rule.

RESULTS

Treatment with eptinezumab resulted in an average of 0.231 QALYs gained at a saving of £4,894 over 5 years, making eptinezumab dominant over best supportive care (i.e., better health outcomes and less costly). This result was confirmed by the probabilistic analysis and all alternative assumption scenarios under the same societal perspective. Univariate testing of inputs showed net monetary benefit was most sensitive to the number of days of productivity loss, and monthly salary.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation shows that from a societal perspective, eptinezumab is a cost-effective treatment in patients with ≥ 4 migraine days per month and for whom ≥ 3 other preventive migraine treatments have failed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

According to the latest European guidelines, discontinuation of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAb) may be considered after 12-18 months of treatment. However, some patients may worsen after discontinuation. In this study, we assessed the response following treatment resumption.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted in 14 Headache Units in Spain. We included patients with response to anti-CGRP MAb with clinical worsening after withdrawal and resumption of treatment. Numbers of monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly headache days (MHD) were obtained at four time points: before starting anti-CGRP MAb (T-baseline); last month of first treatment period (T-suspension); month of restart due to worsening (T-worsening); and 3 months after resumption (T-reintroduction). The response rate to resumption was calculated. Possible differences among periods were analysed according to MMD and MHD.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients, 82% women, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at migraine onset of 18 (12) years. The median (IQR) MHD at T-baseline was 20 (13) and MMD was 5 (6); at T-suspension, the median (IQR) MHD was 5 (6) and MMD was 4 (5); at T-worsening, the median (IQR) MHD was 16 (13) and MMD was 12 (6); and at T-reintroduction, the median (IQR) MHD was 8 (8) and MHD was 5 (5). In the second period of treatment, a 50% response rate was achieved by 57.4% of patients in MHD and 65.8% in MMD. Multivariate models showed significant differences in MHD between the third month after reintroduction and last month before suspension of first treatment period (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that anti-CGRP MAb therapy is effective after reintroduction. However, 3 months after resumption, one third of the sample reached the same improvement as after the first treatment period.

Long-Term Effectiveness of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Migraine: An Italian Retrospective Analysis (REALITY)

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is approved in the European Union (EU) as migraine prophylaxis in adults with at least four migraine days per month. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of galcanezumab on migraine-related burdens and its impact on the use of healthcare resources for migraine prophylaxis in an Italian setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab for migraine prevention between September 2019 and December 2020. Patient data for monthly migraine days (MMDs) and MMDs with acute medication intake were obtained by medical chart reviews. Information on patient-reported outcomes (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire and Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6] questionnaire) and on the use of healthcare resources were also collected. The time points of interest were 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months after the initiation of galcanezumab, and the most recent time point available during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were enrolled in the study. Starting from month 3 after treatment initiation, more than half of the patients presented at least a 50% reduction in MMDs, and approximately one-third of non-responders at month 3 became responders at month 6. From month 3 to month 12, MMDs decreased on average by 10 days. Headache impact and disability, as well as migraine-associated health resource utilization decreased significantly during the treatment period. A positive significant association among the three dimensions of clinical burden (MMDs, MIDAS and days of acute medication intake) was also observed.

CONCLUSION

The results of this Italian real-world study confirmed that galcanezumab has a rapid onset of effect and provides a long-term response among patients over different migraine-related burdens. The use of healthcare resources was also remarkably reduced.

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.

New migraine drugs: A critical appraisal of the reason why the majority of migraine patients do not receive an adequate medication

The last three decades have produced several novel and efficient medications to treat migraine attacks and reduce attack frequency. Additionally, promising approaches for the development of acute therapy and migraine prophylaxis continue to be pursued. At the same time as we witness the development of better and more efficient medications with continuously fewer side effects, we also realise that the high cost of such therapies means that only a minority of migraine patients who could benefit from these medications can afford them. Furthermore, information on cost-effectiveness is still lacking. Here, we compare availiable data, highlight open questions and suggest trials to close knowledge gaps. With good reason, our medicine is evidence-based. However, if this evidence is not collected, our decisions will continue to be based on marketing and assumptions. At the moment, we are not doing justice to our patients.

Pharmacotherapies for Migraine and Translating Evidence From Bench to Bedside

Migraine is a ubiquitous neurologic disorder that afflicts more than 1 billion people worldwide. Recommended therapeutic strategies include the use of acute and, if needed, preventive medications. During the past 2 decades, tremendous progress has been made in better understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying migraine pathogenesis, which in turn has resulted in the advent of novel medications targeting signaling molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Here, we provide an update on the rational use of pharmacotherapies for migraine to facilitate more informed clinical decision-making. We then discuss the scientific discoveries that led to the advent of new medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide signaling. Last, we conclude with recent advances that are being made to identify novel drug targets for migraine.

Placebo and nocebo in the treatment of migraine: How much does real world effectiveness depend on contextual effects?

PURPOSE

Treatments in medicine impact individuals beyond their intended effects, due to phenomena such as the placebo and nocebo effects. The placebo effect arises from the positive expectation of a treatment being beneficial, while the nocebo effect stems from the negative expectation of a treatment causing harm. Both in real-world practice and clinical trials, treatments can lead to outcomes unrelated to their intended mechanism of action, which we categorize as placebo and nocebo responses. These responses, combined with the inherent fluctuation in a condition's natural progression, regression to the mean, and random comorbidities, make up a significant part of the therapeutic experience. Particularly in pain management, placebo and nocebo effects play a substantial role. By addressing modifiable contextual factors such as patient expectations, lifestyle choices, and the therapeutic relationship, healthcare providers can enhance the effectiveness of migraine treatments, paving the way for a more comprehensive, individualized approach to patient care. We must also consider non-modifiable factors like personal experiences, beliefs, and information from social media and the internet.

CONCLUSION

This review offers a summary of our current understanding of the placebo and nocebo effects in migraine management.

Retreating migraine patients in the second year with monoclonal antibodies anti-CGRP pathway: the multicenter prospective cohort RE-DO study

BACKGROUND

The outcome of migraine patients retreated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRPr) is not completely known.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective observational cohort study assessed monthly migraine days (MMDs), migraine acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 at baseline, after 90-112 days (Rev-1), after 84-90 days since Rev-1 (Rev-2) and 30 days after the last injection of anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs (Year-end), in the first and the second year after a discontinuation period.

RESULTS

We enrolled 226 patients (79.6% with chronic migraine; 55.3% on erenumab and 44.7% on galcanezumab or fremanezumab). MMDs, MAMI, and HIT-6-did not differ at the respective first and second-year evaluations in the entire cohort, and comparing anti-CGRP with anti-CGRPr Abs. MMDs (18.1 ± 7.8 vs. 3.4 ± 7.8), MAMI (26.7 ± 28.3 vs.17.7 ± 17.2), and HIT-6 scores (63.1 ± 5.9 vs. 67.1 ± 10.3) were lower in the second year than in the pre-treatment baseline (consistently, p < 0.0001). Second-year baseline MMDs were lower in patients on anti-CGRP mAbs (p = 0.001) and with lower pre-treatment baseline MMDs (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs are effective in the second as in the first year. The use of anti-CGRP or CGRPr mAbs influenced the second-year baseline MMDs, but their effectiveness did not differ during the two treatment years.

Patterns of anti-CGRP mAbs use and variation of triptan consumption following treatment initiation: A descriptive drug utilization study in the Tuscany region, Italy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP mAbs) utilization in the Tuscany region, Italy, and the variation of triptan consumption after treatment initiation.

BACKGROUND

Given the recent commercialization of anti-CGRP mAbs as migraine preventive medications, real-world evidence on their patterns of utilization and their impact on migraine abortive medication use is still limited.

METHODS

A retrospective, descriptive, cohort study on the real-world utilization of anti-CGRP mAbs was performed using the population-based regional administrative database of Tuscany. Patients with ≥1 anti-CGRP mAb dispensing (namely erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab) between April 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021, were identified. The first dispensing was the cohort entry (CE). New users (NUs) were patients with no anti-CGRP mAb dispensing before CE. Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves were plotted to describe the cumulative probability of remaining with the initial anti-CGRP mAb during a 15-month follow-up period as a measure of treatment persistence. Among NUs with ≥2 triptan dispensings during the 6 months before CE (i.e., baseline), the mean monthly number of triptan dosage units dispensed was measured in five consecutive follow-up time windows (months 1-3, 4-6, 7-9, 10-12, 13-15) and the difference from the baseline was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 624 NUs (erenumab = 295, galcanezumab = 223, fremanezumab = 106) were identified, of whom 188 (78%) were women. Mean age was 49.2 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12.6). The survival to discontinuation at 6, 12, and 15 months was about 69%, 48%, and 6%, respectively. The survival to switch was about 6% at 15 months. The observed variation of triptan consumption at 3/6/9/12/15 months and the corresponding SD was -4.4 [8.2]/-5.2 [9.0]/-5.5 [9.2]/-5.4 [9.2]/-4.5 [10.0], respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patient demographics reflect the place of these medications in therapy. Overall, findings seem to indicate a favorable tolerability and effectiveness profile. Further studies are warranted to better establish the long-term comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs compared to other preventive medications.

Ten open questions in migraine prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide pathway: a narrative review

The monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway, collectively called here "anti-CGRP/rec mAbs", have dramatically improved preventive migraine treatment. Although their efficacy and tolerability were proven in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, maybe even more convincingly, in real world settings, a number of open questions remain. In this narrative review, we will analyze published data allowing insight in some of the uncertainties related to the use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in clinical practice: their differential efficacy in migraine subtypes, outcome predictors, switching between molecules, use in children and adolescents, long-term treatment adherence and persistence, effect persistence after discontinuation, combined treatment with botulinum toxin or gepants, added-value and cost effectiveness, effectiveness in other headache types, and potential contraindications based on known physiological effects of CGRP. While recent studies have already provided hints for some of these questions, many of them will not find reliable and definitive answers before larger studies, registries or dedicated RCTs are available.

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group".

RESULTS

Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as "good" quality and 13 studies were graded as "fair".

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

The Registry for Migraine (REFORM) study: methodology, demographics, and baseline clinical characteristics

BACKGROUND

Erenumab has demonstrated effectiveness for prevention of migraine attacks, but the treatment is costly, and a considerable proportion of patients do not respond to it. The Registry for Migraine study (REFORM) was initiated to discover biomarkers that can predict response to erenumab in patients with migraine. The specific objective was to investigate differences in erenumab efficacy based on clinical information, blood-based biomarkers, structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and response to intravenous infusion of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). In this first report of the REFORM study, we provide a comprehensive description of the study methodology, and present the baseline characteristics of the study population.

METHODS

The REFORM study was a single-center, prospective, longitudinal cohort study in adults with migraine who were scheduled to receive preventive treatment with erenumab as part of a separate, open-label, single-arm phase IV trial. The study included four periods: a 2-week screening period (Weeks -6 to -5), 4-week baseline period (Week -4 to Day 1), 24-week treatment period (Day 1 to Week 24), and a 24-week follow-up period without treatment (Week 25 to Week 48). Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded using a semi-structured interview, whilst outcome data were obtained using a headache diary, patient-reported outcomes, blood sampling, brain MRI, and responsiveness to intravenous infusion of CGRP.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 751 participants, with a mean age ± SD of 43.8 ± 12.2 years, of which 88.8% (n = 667) were female. At enrollment, 64.7% (n = 486) were diagnosed with chronic migraine, and 30.2% (n = 227) had history of aura. The mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) was 14.5 ± 7.0. Concomitant preventive medications were used by 48.5% (n = 364) of the participants, and 39.9% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 4 preventive medications.

CONCLUSION

The REFORM study enrolled a population with a high migraine burden and frequent use of concomitant medications. The baseline characteristics were representative of patients with migraine in specialized headache clinics. Future publications will report the results of the investigations presented in this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study and sub-studies were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04592952; NCT04603976; and NCT04674020).

Galcanezumab for the treatment of chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: Real-world clinical evidence in a severely impaired patient population

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody acting against the calcitonin gene-related peptide approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. The aim of this article is to explore its effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab in chronic migraine (CM) with medication overuse-headache (MOH).

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients were consecutively enrolled at the Modena headache center and followed up for 15 months. Visits were scheduled every 3 months, and the following variables were collected: the number of migraine days per month (MDM); the painkillers taken per month (PM); the number of days per month in which the patient took, at least, one painkiller; the six-item headache impact test; and the migraine disability assessment questionnaire (MIDAS) score. Demographic features of the analyzed sample were collected at the baseline and adverse events (AEs) were collected at every visit.

RESULTS

After 12 months, galcanezumab significantly reduced the MDM, the PM, the number of days on medication, the HIT-6 as well as the MIDAS scores (all p < .0001). The greatest amelioration was obtained in the first trimester of treatment. A higher MDM, a higher NRS score at the baseline, and a higher number of failed preventive treatments negatively predict the CM relief at the year of treatment. No serious AEs were registered and only one drop-out was due to AE.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab is effective and safe for the treatment of patients affected by CM and MOH. Patients with a higher impairment at the baseline may found less benefits with galcanezumab.

Emerging drugs for the preventive treatment of migraine: a review of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a leading cause of years lived with disability and preventive strategies represent a mainstay to reduce health-related disability and improve quality of life of migraine patients. Until a few years ago, migraine prevention was based on drugs developed for other clinical indications and relocated in the migraine therapeutic armamentarium, characterized by unfavourable tolerability profiles. The advent of monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists, has been a turning point in migraine prevention owing to advantageous efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles.Nevertheless, while in an ideal scenario a drug characterized by significant greater efficacy and tolerability compared to existing therapeutic strategies should be adopted as a first-line treatment, cost-effectiveness analyses available for monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway tend to limit their administration to more severe migraine phenotypes.

AREAS COVERED

The present narrative review aim to provide a critical appraisal of phase II and III CGRP-mAbs and gepants trials to analyse their use in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway and gepants can be undoubtedly considered top-of-the-range treatments, there are still issues deserving to be addressed in the coming years as the risk of off-target effects as well as their economic sustainability based on the considerable migraine burden.

Switching anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in multi-assessed non-responder patients and implications for ineffectiveness criteria: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A pharmacological class effect was initially proposed for monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway. However, preliminary evidence shows that switching patients who were non-responding to one monoclonal antibody to another could provide some benefit. Herein, we assess treatment response to an anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/receptor monoclonal antibody in patients who have failed to respond to anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies and vice versa. In addition, we select non-responders to the first anti- monoclonal antibody by three or five more stringent variables.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including outpatients treated consecutively with two anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies. Ineffectiveness to the first monoclonal antibody was assessed using three (MIDAS score, monthly headache days, and analgesic monthly days) variables or five (monthly headache days, MIDAS score, analgesic monthly days, analgesic monthly number and HIT-6 score) variables in the same cohort of patients. The primary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in monthly headache days, response rate, and persistence in medication overuse at three months of treatment with the second anti-CGRP mAb.

RESULTS

In patients selected by three variables, a sustained reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, MIDAS and HIT-6 scores was observed at month-3 of treatment with the second monoclonal antibody. Ten (45.4%) patients achieved at least a ≥30% response rate. No difference was reported switching anti-CGRP mAb against ligand or receptor. In the patient subgroup selected by five variables, only HIT-6 was reduced from baseline at month-3. However, a trend toward a reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, and MIDAS score was observed at month-3.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies in selected patients might be an option to achieve or improve clinical benefit. More studies are required to establish the effectiveness of switching these treatments.

CGRP physiology, pharmacology, and therapeutic targets: migraine and beyond

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide with diverse physiological functions. Its two isoforms (α and β) are widely expressed throughout the body in sensory neurons as well as in other cell types, such as motor neurons and neuroendocrine cells. CGRP acts via at least two G protein-coupled receptors that form unusual complexes with receptor activity-modifying proteins. These are the CGRP receptor and the AMY1 receptor; in rodents, additional receptors come into play. Although CGRP is known to produce many effects, the precise molecular identity of the receptor(s) that mediates CGRP effects is seldom clear. Despite the many enigmas still in CGRP biology, therapeutics that target the CGRP axis to treat or prevent migraine are a bench-to-bedside success story. This review provides a contextual background on the regulation and sites of CGRP expression and CGRP receptor pharmacology. The physiological actions of CGRP in the nervous system are discussed, along with updates on CGRP actions in the cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, immune, hematopoietic, and reproductive systems and metabolic effects of CGRP in muscle and adipose tissues. We cover how CGRP in these systems is associated with disease states, most notably migraine. In this context, we discuss how CGRP actions in both the peripheral and central nervous systems provide a basis for therapeutic targeting of CGRP in migraine. Finally, we highlight potentially fertile ground for the development of additional therapeutics and combinatorial strategies that could be designed to modulate CGRP signaling for migraine and other diseases.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies for migraine

The introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies represents a step forward in preventive migraine treatment as the first agents to target the underlying pathogenesis of migraine. In trials they act more quickly, have better long-term adherence and appear to be better tolerated than other treatments. Major disadvantages are their high cost and unknown safety in pregnancy and in cardiovascular disease. To mitigate these concerns, they should be used according to guidance produced by professional bodies, with defined starting and stopping criteria. We do not yet know whether they are more effective than standard care; many patients may still be better treated by other means, in particular addressing lifestyle factors and medication-overuse headache.

Change of CGRP Plasma Concentrations in Migraine after Discontinuation of CGRP-(Receptor) Monoclonal Antibodies

Discontinuation of treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway leads to an increase in migraine frequency. We aimed to assess changes in free and total CGRP plasma concentrations after the discontinuation of CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. This prospective analysis included 59 patients with migraine (n = 25 erenumab, n = 25 galcanezumab, n = 9 fremanezumab) who discontinued mAbs after ≥8 months of treatment. Patients were visited at the time of the last mAb injection (V1) and 16 weeks later (V2). For control, 30 migraine patients without preventive drug therapy were included. We measured free CGRP plasma concentrations in the erenumab and fremanezumab group and total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group. Free CGRP plasma concentrations did not change after treatment discontinuation [erenumab: V1 31.2 pg/mL (IQR 25.8−45.6), V2 30.3 pg/mL (IQR 22.9−47.6), p = 0.65; fremanezumab V1 29.4 pg/mL (IQR 16.4−61.9), V2 34.4 (19.2−62.0), p = 0.86]. Controls had similar CGRP values of 32.6 pg/mL (IQR 21.3−44.6). Total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group were 5439.3 pg/mL (2412.7−6338.1) at V1, and decreased to 1853.2 pg/mL (1136.5−3297.0) at V2 (p < 0.001). Cessation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs did not have an impact on the free-circulating CGRP concentrations. Total CGRP decreased significantly after three months of treatment discontinuation.

[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.

[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.

fMRI Findings in Cortical Brain Networks Interactions in Migraine Following Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is one of the high-potential non-pharmacological methods for migraine treatment. The purpose of this study is to define the neuroimaging markers associated with rTMS therapy in patients with migraine based on data from functional MRI (fMRI).

Materials and Methods

A total of 19 patients with episodic migraine without aura underwent a 5-day course of rTMS of the fronto-temporo-parietal junction bilaterally, at 10 Hz frequency and 60% of motor threshold response of 900 pulses. Resting-state functional MRI (1.5 T) and a battery of tests were carried out for each patient to clarify their diagnosis, qualitative and quantitative characteristics of pain, and associated affective symptoms. Changes in functional connectivity (FC) in the brain's neural networks before and after the treatment were identified through independent components analysis.

Results

Over the course of therapy, we observed an increase in FC of the default mode network within it, with pain system components and with structures of the visual network. We also noted a decrease in FC of the salience network with sensorimotor and visual networks, as well as an increase in FC of the visual network. Besides, we identified 5 patients who did not have a positive response to one rTMS course after the first week of treatment according to the clinical scales results, presumably because of an increasing trend of depressive symptoms and neuroimaging criteria for depressive disorder.

Conclusions

Our results show that a 5-day course of rTMS significantly alters the connectivity of brain networks associated with pain and antinociceptive brain systems in about 70% of cases, which may shed light on the neural mechanisms underlying migraine treatment with rTMS.

Treatment of migraine with monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

: In the few last years, a new family of drugs, anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), has been developed for migraine therapy. Anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective, but the current limited experience with their use and their high-cost warrant establishing certain rules of use.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides an overview of the management of migraine patients, especially those who are undergoing treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to new research focused on the pathophysiology of migraine, and the discovery that CGRP plays a key role in its etiopathogenesis, new drugs targeting CGRP have been developed. These drugs have led to a paradigm shift, anticipating new and stimulating possibilities in migraine treatment. While physicians and patients are full of expectation about the advantages of this new family of drugs, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to make the best use of them. It is essential to form multidisciplinary teams that can identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, conducting cost-effective treatments. The follow-up of these therapies in the coming years is paramount due to the lack of experience in the management of these drugs and the peculiarity of disease evolution in migraine patients.

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.

Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience

Background

Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption.

Methods

Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period.

Results

This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life.

Conclusions

Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

[CGRP antibodies in migraine prophylaxis : The new standard in migraine treatment?]

Migraine is associated with a high individual level of suffering. Therefore, an effective preventive treatment is highly important. The spectrum of classical prophylactic drugs has now been expanded to include monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor. These antibodies have shown reliable efficacy compared to placebo and a rapid onset of action with a low rate of side effects and negligible interactions in pivotal studies. Recently, the efficacy of the antibody was shown in many studies even on drug-refractory migraine and migraine associated with medication overuse. Comprehensive head to head comparisons with previously established drugs and among the antibodies are not yet available; however, initial studies suggest better tolerability and efficacy compared to conventional drugs and other antibodies. The role of antibodies in established treatment cascades still needs to be clarified.

Deterioration of headache impact and health-related quality of life in migraine patients after cessation of preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies

Background

Migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(−receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has a positive effect on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The German treatment guidelines recommend discontinuing successful treatment with CGRP(−receptor) mAbs after 6–12 months. We aimed to evaluate headache-specific and generic HRQoL for three months after discontinuation of CGRP(−receptor) mAb treatment.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study, including patients with migraine after 8–12 months of therapy with a CGRP(−R) mAb and before a planned discontinuation attempt. HRQoL was assessed at the time of the last mAbs injection (V1), eight weeks later (V2), and sixteen weeks later (V3). For headache-specific HRQoL, we used the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Generic HRQoL was determined with the EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Level (ED-5D-5L) form, and the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), which comprises a Physical Component Summary (PCS-12) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS-12).

Questionnaires’ total scores were compared across the three observation points using nonparametric procedures.

Results

The study cohort consisted of n = 61 patients (n = 29 treated with the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab and n = 32 with the CGRP mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab). The HIT-6 sum score was 59.69 ± 6.90 at V1 and increased by 3.69 ± 6.21 at V3 (p < 0.001), indicating a greater headache impact on patients’ lives. The mean total EQ-D5-L5 score declined from 0.85 ± 0.17 at V1 by − 0.07 ± 0.18 at V3 (p = 0.013). Both Mental and Physical Component Scores of the SF-12 worsened significantly during treatment discontinuation: The PCS-12 total score decreased by − 4.04 ± 7.90 from V1 to V3 (p = 0.013) and the MCS-12 score by − 2.73 ± 9.04 (p = 0.003). Changes in all questionnaires’ scores but the MCS-12 were already significant in the first month of the drug holiday (V2).

Conclusions

Our results show a significant decline in headache impact and generic HRQoL of migraine patients after treatment discontinuation of a CGRP(−R) mAb. The observed deterioration is above the established minimally clinically important differences for each of the questionnaires and can therefore be considered clinically meaningful. Monitoring HRQoL during a discontinuation attempt could facilitate the decision whether or not to resume preventive treatment with CGRP(−R) mAbs.

Discontinuing monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP pathway after one-year treatment: an observational longitudinal cohort study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (mAbs anti-CGRP) pathway are effective and safe on migraine prevention. However, some drug agencies limited these treatments to one year due to their high costs. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of discontinuing mAbs anti-CGRP on monthly migraine days (MMDs) and disability in high-frequency episodic (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients.

Methods

This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted at 10 Italian headache centres. Consecutive adult patients were followed-up for three months (F-UP1–3) after discontinuation of a one-year erenumab/galcanezumab treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in F-UP MMDs. Secondary endpoints included variation in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), monthly acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 scores. We also assessed from F-UP1 to 3 the ≥50% response rate, relapse rate to CM, and recurrence of Medication Overuse (MO).

Results

We enrolled 154 patients (72.1% female, 48.2 ± 11.1 years, 107 CM, 47 HFEM); 91 were treated with erenumab, 63 with galcanezumab. From F-UP1 to F-UP3, MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 progressively increased but were still lower at F-UP3 than baseline (Friedman’s analysis of rank, p < .001). In the F-UP1–3 visits, ≥50% response rate frequency did not differ significantly between CM and HFEM patients. However, the median reduction in response rate at F-UP3 was higher in HFEM (− 47.7% [25th, − 79.5; 75th,-17.0]) than in CM patients (− 25.5% [25th, − 47.1; 75th, − 3.3]; Mann-Whitney U test; p = .032). Of the 84 baseline CM patients who had reverted to episodic migraine, 28 (33.3%) relapsed to CM at F-UP1, 35 (41.7%) at F-UP2, 39 (46.4%) at F-UP3. Of the 64 baseline patients suffering of medication overuse headache ceasing MO, 15 (18.3%) relapsed to MO at F-UP1, 26 (31.6%) at F-UP2, and 30 (42.3%, 11 missing data) at F-UP3. Lower MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 and higher response rate in the last month of therapy characterized patients with ≥50% response rate at F-UP1 and F-UP3 (Mann-Whitney U test; consistently p < .01).

Conclusion

Migraine frequency and disability gradually increased after mAbs anti-CGRP interruption. Most patients did not relapse to MO or CM despite the increase in MMDs. Our data suggest to reconsider mAbs anti-CGRP discontinuation.

Preventive treatment with CGRP monoclonal antibodies restores brain stem habituation deficits and excitability to painful stimuli in migraine: results from a prospective case-control study

Background & Objectives

Calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand/receptor (CGRP) antibodies effectively reduce headache frequency in migraine. It is understood that they act peripherally, which raises the question whether treatment merely interferes with the last stage of headache generation or, alternatively, causes secondary adaptations in the central nervous system and might thus possess disease modifying potential. This study addresses this question by investigating the nociceptive blink reflex (nBR), which is closely tied to central disease activity, before and after treatment with CGRP antibodies.

Methods

We enrolled 22 patients suffering episodic migraine (21 female, 46.2 ± 13.8 years of age) and 22 age-/gender-matched controls. Patients received assessments of the nBR (R2 component, 10 trials, 6 stimuli/trial) before (V0) and three months (V3) after treatment with CGRP antibodies started, controls were assessed once. The R2 area (R2a) and habituation (R2h; gradient of R2a against stimulus order) of the stimulated/non-stimulated side (_s/_ns) following repeated supraorbital stimulation provide a direct readout of brainstem excitability and habituation as key mechanisms in migraine.

Results

All patients showed a substantial reduction of headache days/month (V0: 12.4±3.3, V3: 6.6 ± 4.9). R2a_s (F_global=5.86, p<0.001; block 1: R2a_s: -28%, p<0.001) and R2a_ns (F_global=8.22, p<0.001, block 1: R2a_ns: -22%, p=0.003) were significantly decreased, and R2h_ns was significantly enhanced (F_global=3.07, p<0.001; block 6: R2h_ns: r=-1.36, p=0.007) from V0 to V3. The global test for changes of R2h_s was non-significant (F_global=1.46, p=0.095). Changes of R2h significantly correlated with improvement of headache frequency (R2h_s, r=0.56, p=0.010; R2h_ns: r=0.45, p=0.045). None of the nBR parameters assessed at baseline predicted treatment response.

Discussion

We provide evidence that three months of treatment with CGRP antibodies restores brain stem responses to painful stimuli and thus might be considered disease modifying. The nociceptive blink reflex may provide a biomarker to monitor central disease activity. Future studies should evaluate the blink reflex as a clinical biomarker to predict treatment response at baseline and to establish the risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation.

Trial registration

This trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT04019496, date of registration: July 15, 2019).