New migraine prophylactic drugs: Current evidence and practical suggestions for non-responders to prior therapy

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.

Female-selective mechanisms promoting migraine

Sexual dimorphism has been revealed for many neurological disorders including chronic pain. Prelicinal studies and post-mortem analyses from male and female human donors reveal sexual dimorphism of nociceptors at transcript, protein and functional levels suggesting different mechanisms that may promote pain in men and women. Migraine is a common female-prevalent neurological disorder that is characterized by painful and debilitating headache. Prolactin is a neurohormone that circulates at higher levels in females and that has been implicated clinically in migraine. Prolactin sensitizes sensory neurons from female mice, non-human primates and humans revealing a female-selective pain mechanism that is conserved evolutionarily and likely translationally relevant. Prolactin produces female-selective migraine-like pain behaviors in rodents and enhances the release of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a neurotransmitter that is causal in promoting migraine in many patients. CGRP, like prolactin, produces female-selective migraine-like pain behaviors. Consistent with these observations, publicly available clinical data indicate that small molecule CGRP-receptor antagonists are preferentially effective in treatment of acute migraine therapy in women. Collectively, these observations support the conclusion of qualitative sex differences promoting migraine pain providing the opportunity to tailor therapies based on patient sex for improved outcomes. Additionally, patient sex should be considered in design of clinical trials for migraine as well as for pain and reassessment of past trials may be warranted.

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.

Atogepant: Mechanism of action, clinical and translational science

Since the discovery of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in 1982, its integral role in migraine pathophysiology, specifically migraine pain, has been demonstrated through cumulative scientific discoveries that have led to the development and approval of migraine-specific therapeutics. Today, eight drugs, including monoclonal antibodies and small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists, known as gepants, have received approval for acute or preventive treatment of migraine. The primary mechanism of these drugs is to block CGRP signaling, thus preventing CGRP-mediated nociception and neurogenic inflammation. Here, we focus on atogepant, a highly potent and selective gepant and the first and only oral medication approved for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine in adults. In this article, we summarize the role of CGRP in migraine pathophysiology and the mechanism of action of atogepant. In addition, we provide an overview of atogepant's pharmacology and the key clinical trials and outcomes that have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of atogepant.

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

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

Modeling Monthly Migraine-Day Distributions Using Longitudinal Regression Models and Linking Quality of Life to Inform Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Case Study of Fremanezumab in Japanese-Korean Migraine Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As regression approaches have been used more recently to model the effectiveness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of novel migraine treatments, an example is provided for fremanezumab. The objective is to estimate the distribution of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) as a continuous variable and corresponding migraine-specific utility values as a function of the MMD, to inform health states in a cost-effectiveness model (CEM).

METHODS

Three longitudinal regression models (zero-adjusted gamma [ZAGA], zero-inflated beta-binomial [ZIBB], and zero-inflated negative binomial [ZINBI]) were fitted to Japanese-Korean clinical trial data of episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients treated with fremanezumab or placebo, to estimate MMD over a period of 12 months. The EQ-5D-5L and the migraine-specific quality-of-life (MSQ), mapped to the EQ-5D-3L, questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL. Migraine-specific utility values were estimated as a function of MMD using a linear mixed effects model.

RESULTS

The ZIBB models fitted the data best in estimating the distribution of mean MMD over time. MSQ-derived values were more sensitive than the EQ-5D-5L values for the effect of the number of MMD on HRQOL, with higher values for less MMD and more time on treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using longitudinal regression models to estimate MMD distributions and linking utility values as a function is an appropriate method to inform CEMs and capture inter-patient heterogeneity. The observed distribution shifts demonstrated fremanezumab's effect at reducing MMD for both EM and CM patients, while treatment effect on HRQOL was captured by MMD and time on treatment.

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).

Targeting Peripheral N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor (NMDAR): A Novel Strategy for the Treatment of Migraine

Backgrounds: Several acute and preventive medications were developed for the treatment of migraine. Yet, a significant proportion of patients reports an inadequate response and a lack of tolerability, emphasizing the need for new options. Glutamate is the most important excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain, and glutamate receptors including N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor (NMDAR) are expressed at several levels of the trigeminovascular system, which is the anatomical and physiological substrate of migraine pain. Objective: To review preclinical and clinical studies investigating the role of the NMDAR in migraine pathophysiology. Methods: No protocol was registered for this study. References for the present review were identified from a narrative search of the PubMed database. Search terms such as glutamate, migraine, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate Receptor, and NMDAR were used. No restrictions were made in terms of the language and date of publication. Results: In animal models, administration of monosodium glutamate (MSG) activated and sensitized trigeminovascular neurons. In healthy human participants, consumption of MSG caused headaches, craniofacial sensitivity, and nausea. In in vivo models and through immunolabeling, NMDAR subunits NR1, NR2A, and NR2B were expressed in trigeminal ganglion neurons. In humans, NMDAR antagonists such as ketamine and memantine caused a significant reduction in pain intensity and monthly headache frequency. Conclusions: Accumulative evidence indicates that NMDAR is a promising new target for the treatment of migraine. Selective NMDAR antagonists without central effects are needed to investigate their therapeutic benefit in the treatment of migraine.

Effect of switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand antibody treatment in migraine: A real-world cohort study

Background

Therapeutic options for migraine prevention in non-responders to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and its receptor are often limited. Real-world data have shown that non-responders to the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab may benefit from switching to a CGRP ligand mAb. However, it remains unclear whether, vice versa, erenumab is effective in non-responders to CGRP ligand mAbs. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of erenumab in patients who have previously failed a CGRP ligand mAb.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective cohort study included patients with episodic or chronic migraine in whom a non-response (< 30% reduction of monthly headache days during month 3 of treatment compared to baseline) to the CGRP ligand mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab led to a switch to erenumab, and who had received at least 3 administrations of erenumab. Monthly headache days were retrieved from headache diaries to assess the ≥30% responder rates and the absolute reduction of monthly headache days at 3 and 6 months of treatment with erenumab in this cohort.

Results

From May 2019 to July 2022, we identified 20 patients who completed 3 months of treatment with erenumab after non-response to a CGRP ligand mAb. Fourteen patients continued treatment for ≥6 months. The ≥30% responder rate was 35% at 3 months, and 45% at 6 months of treatment with erenumab, respectively. Monthly headache days were reduced from 18.6 ± 5.9 during baseline by 4.1 ± 3.1 days during month 3, and by 7.0 ± 4.8 days during month 6 compared to the month before treatment with erenumab (p < 0.001, respectively). Responders and non-responders to erenumab did not differ with respect to demographic or headache characteristics.

Conclusion

Switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand mAb might be beneficial in a subgroup of resistant patients, with increasing responder rates after 6 months of treatment. Larger prospective studies should aim to predict which subgroup of patients benefit from a switch.