European headache federation consensus on the definition of resistant and refractory migraine : Developed with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance (EMHA)

Ultra-late response (> 24 weeks) to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: a multicenter, prospective, observational study

OBJECTIVE

Nearly 60% of migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway experience a ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) at 12 weeks compared to baseline (responders). However, approximately half of the patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 12 weeks do respond ≤ 24 weeks (late responders). We assessed frequency and characteristics of patients responding to anti-CGRP mAbs only > 24 weeks (ultra-late responders).

METHODS

In this multicenter (n = 16), prospective, observational, real-life study, we enrolled all consecutive adults affected by high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM: ≥ 8 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM), with ≥ 3 prior therapeutic failures, treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 48 weeks. We defined responders patients with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 12 weeks, late responders those with a ≥ 50% response rate ≤ 24 weeks, and ultra-late responders those achieving a ≥ 50% response only > 24 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 572 migraine patients completed ≥ 48 weeks of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment. Responders accounted for 60.5% (346/572), late responders for 15% (86/572), and ultra-late responders for 15.7% (90/572). Among ultra-late responders, 7.3% (42/572) maintained the ≥ 50% response rate across all subsequent time intervals (weeks 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, and 48) and were considered persistent ultra-late responders, while 8.4% (48/572) missed the ≥ 50% response rate at ≥ 1 subsequent time interval and were classified as fluctuating ultra-late responders. Fifty patients (8.7%) did not respond at any time interval ≤ 48 weeks. Ultra-late responders differed from responders for higher BMI (p = 0.033), longer duration of medication overuse (p < 0.001), lower NRS (p = 0.017) and HIT-6 scores (p = 0.002), higher frequency of dopaminergic symptoms (p = 0.002), less common unilateral pain-either alone (p = 0.010) or in combination with UAS (p = 0.023), allodynia (p = 0.043), or UAS and allodynia (p = 0.012)-a higher number of comorbidities (p = 0.012), psychiatric comorbidities (p = 0.010) and a higher proportion of patients with ≥ 1 comorbidity (p = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

Two-thirds of patients not responding to anti-CGRP mAbs ≤ 24 weeks do respond later, while non-responders ≤ 48 weeks are quite rare (8.7%). These findings suggest to rethink the duration of migraine prophylaxis and the definition of resistant and refractory migraine, currently based on the response after 2-3 months of treatment.

CGRP-targeted medication in chronic migraine - systematic review

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine is a highly debilitating condition that is often difficult to manage, particularly in the presence of medication overuse headache. Drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor have shown promising results in treating this disorder.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed and Embase to identify randomized clinical trials and real-world studies reporting on the use of medication targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide in patients with chronic migraine.

RESULTS

A total of 270 records were identified. Nineteen studies qualified for the qualitative analysis. Most studies reported on monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP (anti-CGRP mAbs), that overall prove to be effective in decreasing monthly migraine days by half in about 27.6-61.4% of the patients. Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine was seen in 40.88% of the cases, and 29-88% of the patients stopped medication overuse. Obesity seems to be the main negative predictor of response to anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence to suggest the superiority of one anti-CGRP mAb. Despite the lack of strong evidence, the combination of anti-CGRP medication with onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine is likely to bring benefits for resistant cases. Atogepant is the first gepant to demonstrate a significant decrease in monthly migraine days compared to placebo in a recent trial. Further, anti-CGRP mAb and gepants have a good safety profile.

CONCLUSION

There is strong evidence from randomized trials and real-world data to suggest that drugs targeting CGRP are a safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine.

Migraine treatment: quo vadis? Real-world data study (2015-2022) in Spain

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a leading cause of disability, estimated to affect one-in-ten people in Spain. This study aimed to describe the management of migraine in Spain and identify improvement areas.

METHODS

Non-interventional, retrospective, cross-sectional cohort study conducted using an electronic medical records database covering visits to public healthcare providers for 3% of the Spanish population. Patients with a migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 346) between 01/2015 and 04/2022 were included, as well as their demographic and clinical characteristics, prescribed migraine treatments and the specialty of the prescribing physicians.

RESULTS

The database included 61,204 patients diagnosed with migraine. A migraine treatment had been prescribed to 50.6% of patients over the last 24 months (only acute to 69.5%, both acute and preventive to 24.2%, and only preventive to 6.3%). The most frequently prescribed treatments were NSAIDs (56.3%), triptans (44.1%) and analgesics (28.9%). Antidepressants were the most common preventive treatment (prescribed to 17.9% of all treated patients and 58.7% of those treated with a preventive medication), and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies the least prescribed (1.7%; 5.7%). In 13.4% of cases, preventive medications were the first treatment: alone in 5.8% of cases and together with an acute medication in 7.6%. A fifth of patients who were initially prescribed with only acute treatment were later prescribed a preventive medication (20.7%). On average, it took 29.4 months for this change to occur. Two-thirds of patients started their preventive treatment in primary care (64.2%). The percentage of patients treated by a neurologist increased with the number of received preventive medications. However, 28.8% of patients who had already been prescribed five or more distinct preventive treatments were not treated by a neurologist. Migraine patients had between 1.2- and 2.2-times higher prevalence of comorbidities than the general population, age-gender adjusted.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study emphasizes the need for improved management of migraine in Spain to reduce the risk of chronification and improve patient outcomes. More training and coordination across healthcare professionals is necessary to recognize and address risk factors for migraine progression, including multiple associated comorbidities and several lines of treatment, and to provide personalized treatment plans that address the complex nature of the condition.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Aim: To compare the efficacy of erenumab versus rimegepant as preventive treatment for patients with episodic and chronic migraine using an anchor-based matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Methods: Patients from two phase II/III trials for erenumab (NCT02066415 and NCT02456740) were pooled and weighted to match on the baseline effect modifiers (age, sex, race, baseline monthly migraine days [MMDs], and history of chronic migraine [CM]) reported in the phase II/III trial for rimegepant (NCT03732638). Four efficacy outcomes were compared between the two erenumab regimens (70 mg and 140 mg) and rimegepant, including changes in MMDs from baseline to month 1 and month 3, changes in Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire role function - restrictive domain score from baseline to month 3, and change in disability from baseline to Month 3. Results: Compared with rimegepant, erenumab 70 mg was associated with a statistically significant reduction in MMDs at month 3 (-0.90 [-1.76, -0.03]; p = 0.042) and erenumab 140 mg was associated with statistically significant reductions in MMDs at month 1 (-0.94 [-1.70, -0.19]; p = 0.014) and month 3 (-1.28 [-2.17, -0.40]; p = 0.005). The erenumab regimens also had numerical advantages over rimegepant for other efficacy outcomes. Conclusion: In the present study, we found that erenumab had a more favorable efficacy profile than rimegepant in reducing MMDs at month 1 and month 3 for migraine prevention. These results may help with decision-making in clinical practice and can be further validated in future clinical trials or real-world studies.

A pilot study on a patient with refractory headache: Personalized deep brain stimulation through stereoelectroencephalography

The integration of stereoelectroencephalography with therapeutic deep brain stimulation (DBS) holds immense promise as a viable approach for precise treatment of refractory disorders, yet it has not been explored in the domain of headache or pain management. Here, we implanted 14 electrodes in a patient with refractory migraine and integrated clinical assessment and electrophysiological data to investigate personalized targets for refractory headache treatment. Using statistical analyses and cross-validated machine-learning models, we identified high-frequency oscillations in the right nucleus accumbens as a critical headache-related biomarker. Through a systematic bipolar stimulation approach and blinded sham-controlled survey, combined with real-time electrophysiological data, we successfully identified the left dorsal anterior cingulate cortex as the optimal target for the best potential treatment. In this pilot study, the concept of the herein-proposed data-driven approach to optimizing precise and personalized treatment strategies for DBS may create a new frontier in the field of refractory headache and even pain disorders.

Peripheral Endocannabinoid Components and Lipid Plasma Levels in Patients with Resistant Migraine and Co-Morbid Personality and Psychological Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study

Resistant migraine characterizes those patients who have failed at least three classes of migraine prophylaxis. These difficult-to-treat patients are likely to be characterized by a high prevalence of psychological disturbances. A dysfunction of the endocannabinoid system (ECS), including alteration in the levels of endocannabinoid congeners, may underlie several psychiatric disorders and the pathogenesis of migraines. Here we explored whether the peripheral gene expression of major components of the ECS and the plasma levels of endocannabinoids and related lipids are associated with psychological disorders in resistant migraine. Fifty-one patients (age = 46.0 ± 11.7) with resistant migraine received a comprehensive psychological evaluation according to the DSM-5 criteria. Among the patients, 61% had personality disorders (PD) and 61% had mood disorders (MD). Several associations were found between these psychological disorders and peripheral ECS alterations. Lower plasma levels of palmitoiletanolamide (PEA) were found in the PD group compared with the non-PD group. The MD group was characterized by lower mRNA levels of diacylglycerol lipase α (DAGLα) and CB2 (cannabinoid-2) receptor. The results suggest the existence of peripheral dysfunction in some components of the ECS and an alteration in plasma levels of PEA in patients with resistant migraine and mood or personality disorders.

Responder rates with eptinezumab over 24 weeks in patients with prior preventive migraine treatment failures: post hoc analysis of the DELIVER randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days more than placebo in the DELIVER study, a clinical trial with patients with difficult-to-treat migraine and prior preventive treatment failures. This post hoc analysis assesses the sustained response to eptinezumab at the population and patient level and evaluates the potential for response in initial non-responders.

METHODS

Adults with chronic or episodic migraine and two to four prior preventive treatment failures were randomized to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg or placebo every 12 weeks. Primary outcomes in this post hoc analysis are the proportion of patients with ≥30%, ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days (i.e., migraine responder rates [MRRs]) during weeks 1-12 and weeks 13-24 and across 4-week intervals. Secondary outcomes are maintenance and shifts in MRRs from weeks 1-12 to weeks 13-24.

RESULTS

Between weeks 1-12 and 13-24, ≥30% MRRs increased from 65.9% to 70.4% (100 mg) and from 71.0% to 74.5% (300 mg), versus 36.9% to 43.1% (placebo). The ≥50% and ≥75% MRRs were sustained or increased over the 24-week period. The largest increase in ≥30% MRRs occurred after the second infusion with eptinezumab. The percentage of initial non-responders (<30% MRRs during weeks 1-12) who experienced response (≥30% MRRs during weeks 13-24) to the second dose was 34.7% (100 mg) and 30.4% (300 mg) with eptinezumab versus 21.1% with placebo.

CONCLUSION

Across MRR thresholds, most patients who responded to eptinezumab during weeks 1-12 maintained or improved response during weeks 13-24. More than one-third of initial non-responders became responders after their second infusion.

Resistant and refractory migraine: clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and management

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide. A minority of individuals with migraine develop resistant or refractory conditions characterised by ≥ 8 monthly days of debilitating headaches and inadequate response, intolerance, or contraindication to ≥3 or all preventive drug classes, respectively. Resistant and refractory migraine are emerging clinical definitions stemming from better knowledge of the pathophysiology of migraine and from the advent of migraine-specific preventive treatments. Resistant migraine mostly results from drug failures, while refractory migraine has complex and still unknown mechanisms that impair the efficacy of preventive treatments. Individuals with resistant migraine can be treated with migraine-specific preventive drugs. The management of refractory migraine is challenging and often unsuccessful, being based on combinations of different drugs and non-pharmacological treatment. Future research should aim to identify individuals at risk of developing treatment failures, prevent the condition, investigate the mechanisms of refractoriness to treatments, and find effective treatment strategies.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: β-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

Real-world study of intranasal ketamine for use in patients with refractory chronic migraine: a retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Subanesthetic ketamine infusion has been used for managing refractory headache in inpatient or outpatient infusion settings. Intranasal ketamine may be an alternative option for outpatient care.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary headache center to assess the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of intranasal ketamine in patients with refractory chronic migraine. Candidates who received intranasal ketamine between January 2019 and February 2020 were screened through an electronic medical record query. Manual chart reviews and structured telephone interviews were conducted on obtaining informed consent.

RESULTS

Of 242 subjects screened, 169 (79.9% women) of median (IQR) age 44 (22) years were interviewed. They reported a median (IQR) of 30 (9) monthly headache days and tried 4 (1) classes of preventive medications. Overall, they used 6 (6) sprays per day, with a median (IQR) of spray use of 10 (11) days per month. Intranasal ketamine was reported as 'very effective' in 49.1% and the quality of life was considered 'much better' in 35.5%. At the time of the interview, 65.1% remained current intranasal ketamine users and 74.0% reported at least one adverse event.

CONCLUSION

In this descriptive study, intranasal ketamine served as an acute treatment for refractory chronic migraine by reducing headache intensity and improving quality of life with relatively tolerable adverse events. Most patients found intranasal ketamine effective and continued to use it despite these adverse events. Given the potential for overuse, it should be reserved for those clearly in need of more effective rescue treatment with appropriate safety precautions. Well-designed prospective placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine in patients with migraine.

One-year prospective real-world assessment of effectiveness and safety of erenumab in migraine prevention: results of the French FHU INOVPAIN registry study

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated efficacy and safety of erenumab. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of erenumab in a real-world setting in French patients with migraine associated with extreme unmet needs.

METHODS

This is a one year-prospective real-word study with enrolment of all consecutive adult patients included in the FHU InovPain registry who participated in a compassionate erenumab use program.

RESULTS

Of 144 patients included, 140 patients (82.1% female / mean age of 50.9 ± 11.4) received at least one dose of erenumab and were concerned by effectiveness and safety assessment. All patients had failed 11 oral preventive treatments. Most of them suffered from chronic migraine (88.6%) and presented a medication overuse (90.7%) at baseline. Thirty-eight (27.1%) discontinued treatment during the 12-month follow-up, with 22 (15.7%), 11 (7.9%) and 5 (3.6%) patients before 3, 6 or 9 months of treatment. The proportion of ≥ 50% responders at M3, M6, M9 and M12 was 74/140 (52.9%), 69/118 (58.5%), 61/107 (57.0%) and 60/102 (58.8%) respectively. At M3, the rate of reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine was 57.3% and the rate of transition from medication overuse to non-overuse was 46.5%. For monthly migraine days, the median (IQR) was 18.0 (13.0-26.0), 9.0 (5.0-17.0), 7.5 (5.0-14.0), 8.0 (5.0-12.5) and 8.0 (5.0-12.0) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. For HIT-6 score, the median (IQR) was 68.0 (63.8-73.3), 60.0 (54.0-65.0), 60.0 (50.3-53.0), 59.0 (50.0-63.0) and 58.0 (50.0-62.9) at M0, M3, M6, M9 and M12 respectively. Fifty-three (37.9%) patients reported at least one of the following adverse events: cutaneous erythema and/or pain at the injection site for 42 (30%) patients, constipation for 22 (15.7%) patients, muscle spasm for 2 (1.4%) patients, alopecia for one (0.7%) patient and blood pressure increase in one (0.7%) patient. There was no serious adverse event. One female patient became pregnant after 5 months of exposure to erenumab with a safe evolution after treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

This first French real-world study related to migraine prevention with CGRP-mAbs confirms effectiveness and safety of erenumab in patients with extreme unmet needs.

A Comprehensive Review of the Mechanism, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ubrogepant in the Treatment of Migraine

Ubrogepant is an innovative medication designed for the acute treatment of migraine, a debilitating neurological condition that profoundly impairs quality of life, productivity, and social interactions. This comprehensive review assesses the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and mechanism of action of ubrogepant through a rigorous methodology, including an in-depth literature review from reputable databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. Classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, ubrogepant has emerged as a potential revolutionary medication for migraine treatment. CGRP is a peptide integral to migraine pathophysiology, and its blockade has demonstrated great therapeutic potential. Unlike triptans, known for their cardiovascular risks, ubrogepant lacks vasoconstrictive properties, making it a safer alternative for a broader patient population. Ubrogepant offers significant potential for pain relief, symptom reduction, and restoration of normal function during a migraine attack, and it outperforms placebo in terms of efficacy. It also presents favorable safety, with generally mild adverse drug events (ADEs), such as nausea, dizziness, and somnolence, similar to placebo effects. Consistent results from clinical trials confirm its tolerability, with minor ADEs and no safety alerts for the tested doses, indicating that ubrogepant is a safe and well-tolerated option for migraine treatment. As an effective oral medication, ubrogepant could be an alternative to traditional acute migraine treatments. Its benefits include a unique mechanism of action, rapid onset, and favorable safety profile. However, specific contraindications, such as hypersensitivity, severe hepatic impairment, concurrent use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and uncontrolled hypertension, require caution or avoidance of ubrogepant. Despite these limitations, ubrogepant signals a promising new direction in migraine therapeutics.

Peripherally acting anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies alter cortical gray matter thickness in migraine patients: A prospective cohort study

Migraine is underpinned by central nervous system neuroplastic alterations thought to be caused by the repetitive peripheral afferent barrage the brain receives during the headache phase (cortical hyperexcitability). Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP-mAbs) are highly effective migraine preventative treatments. Their ability to alter brain morphometry in treatment-responders vs. non-responders is not well understood. Our aim was to determine the effects of the anti-CGRP-mAb galcanezumab on cortical thickness after 3-month treatment of patients with high-frequency episodic or chronic migraine. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging was performed pre- and post-treatment in 36 migraine patients. In this group, 19 patients were classified responders (≥50 % reduction in monthly migraine days) and 17 were considered non-responders (<50 % reduction in monthly migraine days). Following cross-sectional processing to analyze the baseline differences in cortical thickness, two-stage longitudinal processing and symmetrized percent change were conducted to investigate treatment-related brain changes. At baseline, no significant differences were found between the responders and non-responders. After 3-month treatment, decreased cortical thickness (compared to baseline) was observed in the responders in regions of the somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal cortex, superior frontal gyrus, and supramarginal gyrus. Non-responders demonstrated decreased cortical thickness in the left dorsomedial cortex and superior frontal gyrus. We interpret the cortical thinning seen in the responder group as suggesting that reduction in head pain could lead to changes in neural swelling and dendritic complexity and that such changes reflect the recovery process from maladaptive neural activity. This conclusion is further supported by our recent study showing that 3 months after treatment initiation, the incidence of premonitory symptoms and prodromes that are followed by headache decreases but not the incidence of the premonitory symptoms or prodromes themselves (that is, cortical thinning relates to reductions in the nociceptive signals in the responders). We speculate that a much longer recovery period is required to allow the brain to return to a more 'normal' functioning state whereby prodromes and premonitory symptoms no longer occur.

Use of spinal cord stimulation in treatment of intractable headache diseases

Headache diseases remain one of the leading causes of disability in the world. With the development of neuromodulation strategies, high cervical spinal cord stimulation (hcSCS) targeting the trigeminocervical complex has been deployed to treat refractory headache diseases. In this article, we review the proposed mechanism behind hcSCS stimulation, and the various studies that have been described for the successful use of this treatment strategy in patients with chronic migraine, cluster headache, and other trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias.

Breaking the cycle: unraveling the diagnostic, pathophysiological and treatment challenges of refractory migraine

Background

Refractory migraine is a poorly described complication of migraine in which migraine has chronified and become resistant to standard treatments. The true prevalence is unknown, but medication resistance is common in headache clinic patient populations. Given the lack of response to treatment, this patient population is extremely difficult to treat with limited guidance in the literature.

Objective

To review the diagnostic, pathophysiological, and management challenges in the refractory migraine population.

Discussion

There are no accepted, or even ICHD-3 appendix, diagnostic criteria for refractory migraine though several proposed criteria exist. Current proposed criteria often have low bars for refractoriness while also not meeting the needs of pediatrics, lower socioeconomic status, and developing nations. Pathophysiology is unknown but can be hypothesized as a persistent "on" state as a progression from chronic migraine with increasing central sensitization, but there may be heterogeneity in the underlying pathophysiology. No guidelines exist for treatment of refractory migraine; once all guideline-based treatments are tried, treatment consists of n-of-1 treatment trials paired with non-pharmacologic management.

Conclusion

Refractory migraine is poorly described diagnostically, its pathophysiology can only be guessed at by extension of chronic migraine, and treatment is more the art than science of medicine. Navigating care of this refractory population will require multidisciplinary care models and an emphasis on future research to answer these unknowns.

Long-Term Effect of Switching From an Anti-CGRP Receptor to an Anti-CGRP Ligand Antibody in Treatment-Refractory Chronic Migraine: A Prospective Real-World Analysis

In migraine patients with a poor response to a calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody against the receptor, switching to a calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies against the ligand may be beneficial. This was a long-term real-world prospective analysis conducted in treatment-refractory chronic migraine patients coming from two large tertiary referral headache centres, who did not achieve a meaningful response to erenumab and were switched to fremanezumab. Responders to fremanezumab were considered those who achieved at least 30% reduction in monthly migraine days by month 3, compared to the post-erenumab baseline. Secondary efficacy and disability outcomes were analysed. Thirty-nine patients (female n = 32, 82.1%; median age: 49 years old, IQR = 29.0-56.0) were included. After three months of treatment with fremanezumab, ten out of 39 patients (25.6%) were considered responders. Four of the 11 patients who continued fremanezumab became responders at month 6, increasing the number of responders to 14 patients (35.9%). Responders received a median of 12 injections (IQR = 9.0-18.0) at the time of the analysis. After the last treatment, 13 patients (33.3%) remained responders. The number of mean monthly migraine days significantly decreased from 21.4 at baseline (IQR = 10.7-30.0) to 8.6 (IQR = 3.8-13.9) at the last follow-up. Painkillers intake and HIT-6 score were significantly reduced at the last follow-up. About 1/3 of patients with treatment refractory chronic migraine who have a disappointing response to erenumab and switch to fremanezumab, obtained a meaningful and sustained improvement of their migraine load over time, supporting the appropriateness of this therapeutic approach in clinical practice.

Migraine Treatment: Towards New Pharmacological Targets

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition affecting millions of people worldwide. Until a few years ago, preventive migraine treatments were based on molecules with pleiotropic targets, developed for other indications, and discovered by serendipity to be effective in migraine prevention, although often burdened by tolerability issues leading to low adherence. However, the progresses in unravelling the migraine pathophysiology allowed identifying novel putative targets as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). Nevertheless, despite the revolution brought by CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants, a significant percentage of patients still remains burdened by an unsatisfactory response, suggesting that other pathways may play a critical role, with an extent of involvement varying among different migraine patients. Specifically, neuropeptides of the CGRP family, such as adrenomedullin and amylin; molecules of the secretin family, such as pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) and vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP); receptors, such as transient receptor potential (TRP) channels; intracellular downstream determinants, such as potassium channels, but also the opioid system and the purinergic pathway, have been suggested to be involved in migraine pathophysiology. The present review provides an overview of these pathways, highlighting, based on preclinical and clinical evidence, as well as provocative studies, their potential role as future targets for migraine preventive treatment.

Establishing internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing through expert consensus: a Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to establish internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing.

DESIGN

A three-round Delphi study was conducted.

SETTING

This study was conducted virtually using an online survey platform.

PARTICIPANTS

This study involved an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. The expert panel (n=48) represented 26 countries across five continents, numerous expert groups and a variety of years of experience with social prescribing, with the average being 5 years (range=1-20 years).

RESULTS

After three rounds, internationally accepted conceptual and operational definitions of social prescribing were established. The definitions were transformed into the Common Understanding of Social Prescribing (CUSP) conceptual framework.

CONCLUSION

This foundational work offers a common thread-a shared sense of what social prescribing is, which may be woven into social prescribing research, policy and practice to foster common understanding of this concept.

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).

A Retrospective Real-Life Multicenter Study on Concurrent Oral Preventive Treatments in Patients with Chronic Migraine Treated with OnabotulinumtoxinA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

OnabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) is a relatively safe and effective treatment for chronic migraine. The local mode of action of BoNTA favors the combination of oral treatments with systemic action. However, little is known about the possible interactions with other preventive treatments. The objective of the study was to describe the use of oral preventive treatments in patients with chronic migraine treated with BoNTA in routine clinical care and discuss the tolerability and efficacy according to the presence or absence of concomitant oral treatments.

METHODS

In this multicenter, observational, retrospective, cohort study, we collected data from patients with chronic migraine receiving prophylactic treatment with BoNTA. Patients were eligible if aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with chronic migraine according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, Third Edition criteria, and treated with BoNTA according to the PREEMPT paradigm. We documented the proportion of patients with at least one concomitant treatment prescribed specifically for migraine (CT+M) and their side effects during four BoNTA treatment cycles. Additionally, we collected monthly headache days and monthly acute medication days from the patients' headache diaries. Patients with CT+M were compared to those without concomitant treatment (CT-) using a nonparametric approach.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 181 patients taking BoNTA, of whom 77 (42.5%) received a CT+M. The most frequently prescribed concomitant treatments were antidepressants and antihypertensive drugs. Side effects in the CT+M group occurred in 14 patients (18.2%). Only in three of them (3.9%), the side effects had a significant interference with the patient's functioning (all in topiramate 200-mg/day users). Both CT+M and CT- groups had a significant reduction in monthly headache days of respectively - 6 (95% confidence interval - 9, - 3; p < 0.001; w = 0.200) during cycle 4 compared with baseline versus - 9 (95% confidence interval - 13, -6; p < 0.001; w = 0.469). However, the reduction in monthly headache days was significantly smaller in patients with CT+M after the fourth treatment cycle compared with patients with CT- (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription of oral concomitant preventive treatment is common in patients with chronic migraine receiving BoNTA. We did not identify any unexpected safety or tolerability issues in patients receiving BoNTA and a CT+M. However, patients with a CT+M experienced a smaller reduction in monthly headache days when compared with those with CT-, which might be associated with a higher resistance to treatment in that subgroup of patients.

Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments for migraine prophylaxis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Migraine is a major public health problem owing to its long disease duration and disease relapse. Non-invasive brain stimulation treatments were reported effective for the management of migraine, but the comparative effectiveness of three main NIBSs, rTMS, nVNS, and tDCS, has not been studied. We aimed to explore the relative efficacy of rTMS, tDCS, and nVNS in migraine prophylaxis by using network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

We searched OVID Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, and Web of Science from inception to 1 January 2022. Randomized controlled trials that reported the efficacy of rTMS, tDCS or nVNS in the prophylactic treatment of migraine were included. The primary outcome was monthly migraine frequency, and secondary outcomes were headache intensity and the impact of headaches on daily life. The relative effects of the treatments in contrast to the others were measured by using standard mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 31 trials with 1659 participants. Fourteen trials were rated as low risk of bias. The results showed that tDCS (SMD - 1.58; 95%CI, - 2.38 to  - 0.79; P-score = 0.92) had the largest effect on migraine frequency when compared with sham interventions in reducing monthly migraine frequency, and tDCS had a larger effect than rTMS (SMD - 0.62; 95%CI, - 1.81 to 0.57) and nVNS (SMD - 1.39; 95%CI, - 3.27 to 0.49). tDCS had also the largest effect in reducing pain intensity when compared with sham intervention (SMD - 1.49; 95%CI, - 2.46 to  - 0.52) and rTMS (SMD - 0.48; 95%CI, - 2.06 to 1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

For the prophylactic treatment of migraine, tDCS was relatively more effective than rTMS and nVNS. Head-to-head comparison trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Migraine Treatment Using Erenumab: Can Lead to a Cognitive and Psychological Qualitative Improvement?

Migraine is one of the most disabling disorders in the world, associated with poor quality of life. Migraine prevention strategies have increasingly evolved since monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), or its receptor, were identified. CGRP is the ideal target of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In particular, erenumab is the mAb that has shown good therapeutic efficacy in reducing pain intensity and having high tolerability. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of erenumab on both cognitive performance and psychological well-being. This was a pilot study with a retrospective design that included 14 subjects (2 males and 12 females), with a mean age of 52.29 ± 9.62, who attended the Headache and Migraine outpatient clinic of the IRCCS Centro Neurolesi Bonino-Pulejo of Messina. The evaluation consisted of measuring cognitive and psychological functioning. Comparing clinical and psychometric test scores between baseline and follow-up, we found a significant improvement in both cognitive performance and quality of life. We also observed a decrease in migraine disability. Our findings have shown improvements in global cognitive performance and quality of life in migraine patients taking erenumab.

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.

Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes and quality of life in patients with migraine and prior preventive treatment failures

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In the phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled DELIVER clinical trial, eptinezumab reduced migraine frequency and headache in adults with two to four prior preventive treatment failures. Here, the effect of eptinezumab on coinciding patient-reported outcomes is reported.

METHODS

Adults were randomized to receive eptinezumab 100, 300 mg or placebo intravenously at weeks 12 and 24. The EQ-5D-5L, measuring overall patient health, and the six-item Headache Impact Test were completed every 4 weeks. The Patient Global Impression of Change was completed at weeks 4, 12 and 24. Patient-identified most bothersome symptom and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire were administered at weeks 12 and 24.

RESULTS

Eptinezumab improved patient-reported outcomes more than placebo, starting at week 4 and at all subsequent time points. By week 12, patients' overall health (EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale score) improved with eptinezumab treatment (difference from placebo in change from baseline: 100 mg, 5.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2, 8.1, p < 0.001; 300 mg, 7.5, 95% CI 4.5, 10.4, p < 0.0001). At week 12, eptinezumab improved headache-related quality of life (difference from placebo in change from baseline in Headache Impact Test total score: 100 mg, -3.8, 95% CI -5.0, -2.5, p < 0.0001; 300 mg, -5.4, 95% CI -6.7, -4.2, p < 0.0001), including each Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire domain (p ≤ 0.0001, all comparisons). Over twice as many patients receiving eptinezumab than placebo reported much or very much improvement on the Patient Global Impression of Change and patient-identified most bothersome symptom.

CONCLUSION

Patients with two to four prior preventive treatment failures receiving eptinezumab versus placebo reported greater improvements in well-being, quality of life and most bothersome symptoms compared to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04418765; EudraCT identifier: 2019-004497-25.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Unmet Needs in Preventive Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common cause of work disability in young women and the second one in the general population. Preventive treatment can reduce the frequency of attacks and their intensity, consequently improving the quality of life. Despite this, global health systems have shown important gaps in addressing optimal management of preventive therapy. Despite numerous adverse effects of traditional medications for migraine prevention being well known, these medications continue to be considered the standard of care for prophylaxis of this disease in many contexts. On the other hand, the widespread use of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, which have marked a breakthrough in prophylactic therapy of migraine, has been limited because of their high cost. We also highlight important shortcomings in migraine management by general practitioners (GPs) and poor patient education on the disease with a consequent delay in referring selected patients to dedicated headache centres. Over the next few years, we expect the headache medicine community to mobilize to address these gaps in preventive treatment of migraine.

Preventive treatment response associated with migraine aura subtypes in a Thai population

Introduction

Some studies indicate a different response to treatment between migraine patients with and without aura.

Objectives

To determine whether aura, or simple or complex aura subtypes, are clinical markers predicting response to preventive treatment.

Methods

Conducted a retrospective cohort study at a headache clinic in a tertiary referral hospital. We included data from patients registered from 1 November 2014, to 30 June 2022, having migraine with or without aura, or with simple or complex aura, and who had received migraine preventive treatments with at least 3 months follow-up. The primary outcome was a response to preventive treatment defined as at least a 50% reduction from a baseline of monthly migraine or headache days (MMDs/MHDs). Secondary outcomes were improvement in quality of life and disability scores.

Results

For migraine patients with (45) and without (123) aura who took a migraine preventive with at least 3 months follow-up; except for median age, which was older for patients without aura, baseline sex, comorbidity, and migraine data were without significant difference including median history of migraine, chronic migraine subtype, chronic migraine with medication-overuse headache, median or mean MMDs/MHDs, number of preventive medications used, or migraine preventive medication inhibiting spreading depolarizations. Treatment outcomes at 3 and 6 months follow-up were not significantly different between migraine patients with and without aura, or with simple and complex aura, but tended to be greater in those with aura and those with complex aura. After adjustment for baseline comorbidity, migraine subtypes, aura subtypes, the number of preventives used, history of migraine, and MMDs/MHDs, we found no significant differences in 30% and 50% reduction from baseline of MMDs/MHDs in 3 or 6 months or most recent follow-up.

Conclusions

Preventive treatment response tended to be associated with migraine aura subtypes. We found preventive treatment response tended to have more favorable outcomes in those with aura, especially those with complex aura.

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.

OnabotulinumtoxinA Add-On to Monoclonal Anti-CGRP Antibodies in Treatment-Refractory Chronic Migraine

We sought to assess the effectiveness of combining dual therapy with onabotulinumtoxinA (BTX) add-on to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (anti-CGRP MAbs) in treatment-refractory patients with chronic migraine (CM). We retrospectively reviewed the medical files of 19 treatment-refractory patients with CM who had failed to two oral migraine preventatives, at least three consecutive BTX cycles (less than 30% response rate), at least three consecutive sessions with either fremanezumab or erenumab (less than 30% response rate), and were eventually switched to dual therapy with BTX add-on to any of the already-given anti-CGRP MAbs. We then assessed from baseline to each monotherapy or dual intervention predefined efficacy follow-up the changes in the following efficacy outcomes: (i) monthly headache days (MHD), (ii) monthly days with moderate/severe peak headache intensity, and (iii) monthly days with intake of any acute headache medication. Response (50% reduction in MHD) rates, safety, and tolerability were also determined. In the majority of cases (n = 14), dual targeting proved effective and was associated with clinically meaningful improvement in all efficacy variables; 50% response rates (also disability and QOL outcomes) coupled with favorable safety/tolerability. Our results advocate in favor of the view that dual therapy is effective and should be considered in difficult-to-treat CM patients who have failed all available monotherapies.

Does MIDAS reduction at 3 months predict the outcome of erenumab treatment? A real-world, open-label trial

Background

In Italy, monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are subsidized for the preventive treatment of high frequency and chronic migraine (CM) in patients with a MIgraine Disability ASsessment (MIDAS) score ≥ 11. Eligibility to treatment continuation requires a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at three months (T3). In this study, we evaluate whether a ≥ 50% MIDAS score reduction at T3 is a reliable predictor of response to one-year erenumab treatment.

Methods

In this prospective, open-label, real-world study, 77 CM patients were treated with erenumab 70–140 mg s.c. every 28 days for one year (T13). We collected the following variables: monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly headache days (MHDs), days of acute medication intake, MIDAS, HIT-6, anxiety, depression, quality of life and allodynia. Response to erenumab was evaluated as: i) average reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment period; and ii) percentage of patients with ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs during the last 4 weeks after the 13th injection (RespondersT13).

Results

Erenumab induced a sustained reduction in MMDs, MHDs and intake of acute medications across the 12-month treatment period, with 64.9% of patients qualifying as RespondersT13. At T3, 55.8% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score (MIDASRes) and 55.4% of patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs (MMDRes). MIDASRes and MMDRes patients showed a more pronounced reduction in MMDs during the 1-year treatment as compared to NON-MIDASRes (MIDASRes: T0: 23.5 ± 4.9 vs. T13: 7.7 ± 6.2; NON- MIDASRes: T0: 21.6 ± 5.4 vs. T13: 11.3 ± 8.8, p = 0.045) and NON-MMDRes (MMDRes: T0: 23.0 ± 4.5 vs. T13: 6.6 ± 4.8; NON-MMDRes: T0: 22.3 ± 6.0 vs. T13: 12.7 ± 9.2, p < 0.001) groups. The percentage of RespondersT13 did not differ between MIDASRes (74.4%) and NON-MIDASRes (52.9%) patients (p = 0.058), while the percentage of RespondersT13 was higher in the MMDRes group (83.3%) when compared to NON-MMDRes (42.9%) (p = 0.001). MMDRes predicted the long-term outcome according to a multivariate analysis (Exp(B) = 7.128; p = 0.001), while MIDASRes did not. Treatment discontinuation based on MIDASRes would have early excluded 36.0% of RespondersT13. Discontinuation based on “either MIDASResor MMDRes” would have excluded a lower percentage (16%) of RespondersT13.

Conclusion

MIDASRes only partly reflects the 12-month outcome of erenumab treatment in CM, as it excludes more than one third of responders. A criterion based on the alternative consideration of ≥ 50% reduction in MIDAS score or MMDs in the first three months of treatment represents a more precise and inclusive option.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05442008).

Graphical Abstract

CGRP: Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide. MIDAS: MIgraine Disability Assessment. MMDs: monthly migraine days. MIDASRes: Patients with a MIDAS score reduction of at least 50% at T3. MMDRes: Patients with a MMDs reduction of at least 50% at T3. ResponderT13: Patients with a MMDs reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the last 4 weeks of observation period (after 13 erenumab administrations). T0: First erenumab administration. T3, T6, T9, T12: Follow-up visits at three, six, nine, and twelve months after first erenumab administration. T13: Last visit of the protocol.

Reaching the Nadir of Medication Overuse in Chronic Migraine

The introduction of new drug classes for chronic migraine, such as monoclonal antibodies for calcitonin-gene-related peptide or its receptor (CGRPr), or antagonists of the same CGRP, have opened a new scenario in a selected population of individuals with migraine, and those presenting with chronic form of migraine in association with medication overuse. Medication overuse is now considered a complication of chronic migraine and, in fact, the treatment with CGRP(r)-MAbs of chronic migraine with medication overuse results in a clinical improvement of chronic migraine itself, accompanied by a parallel and obvious reduction in the intake of specific and non-specific acute migraine drugs. Education on the correct use of these drugs will be an essential tool to reduce the disability and costs of people suffering from CM complicated by MO, considering the long-term safety of the new therapies targeting the CGRP pathways. Only in this way can medication overuse risk can be reduced at its nadir in the scenario of chronicity of migraines.

Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis

Background

Controlled and real-world evidence have demonstrated the efficacy of calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in migraine. However, data on the over-one-year sustained effectiveness of CGRP MABs in resistant chronic migraine (CM) is sparse. 

Methods

This is a two-year real-world prospective analysis of an ongoing single centre audit conducted in patients with resistant CM. Patients received monthly erenumab for six months before assessing its effectiveness. Responders were considered those who achieved at least 30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) by month 6, compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes were also analysed, including changes of the Headache Impact Test version 6 (HIT-6).

Results

One hundred sixty-four patients [135 (82.3%) females; mean age 46 SD 14) years] were included in the audit and 160 patients analysed. Patients had failed a mean of 8.4 preventive treatments at baseline. At month 6, 76 patients (48%) were 30% responders to erenumab, 50 patients (31%) were 50% responders and 25 (15%) were 75% responders. The mean reduction in MMD at month 6 was 7.5 days compared to baseline (P < 0.001). At month 12 and month 18, 61 patients (38%) and 52 patients (33%) remained 30% responders respectively. At month 24, 36 patients (23%) remained 30% responders, 25 patients (16%) and 13 patients (8%) were respectively 50% and 75% responders. Compared to 95% of patients at baseline, at months 6, 12 and 24, 46%, 29% and 16% of responders respectively had severe disability. At least one adverse event at month 6, 12, 18 and 24 was reported by 49%, 19%, 11% and 3% of patients. By month 6, 13% of patients discontinued the treatment because of side effects, often constipation.

Conclusions

Long-term sustained effectiveness of erenumab was reported only by a minority of resistant CM patients. Although more research in resistant migraine is needed, Erenumab can provide long-term meaningful reduction in migraine load and migraine-related disability in some patients.

Is prednisone still a reasonable option in the treatment of withdrawal headache in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse headache in the age of CGRP antibodies? A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

Along with the development of novel migraine therapies as the monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor, the question arises if the treatment of chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH) must be reconsidered. Have previous therapeutic approaches, including glucocorticoids, lost their role in the management of this debilitating disorder? In this narrative review, we present an overview of the available treatment options in CM and MOH in light of CGRP antibodies as well as an evaluation of the role of glucocorticoids in withdrawal therapy.

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine and medication overuse continues to be a difficult to treat condition. To date, potent treatment options are scarce and algorithms for advising patients with MOH are often still based on expert consensus rather than evidence-based medicine. For years and probably due to lack of effective alternatives, glucocorticoids have been used in MOH, especially to alleviate withdrawal symptoms caused by detoxification. Small case series report positive effects of steroids in this respective patient group; however, randomized controlled trials did not show a consistent benefit, although this may be due to methodological limitations. Because of these discrepancies, their role in MOH has been under debate ever since.

METHODS

We searched the electronic database PubMed for articles up to June 1, 2022 on the use of glucocorticoids in CM and MOH.

CONCLUSION

Despite popular use in clinical practice, there is currently still no scientific evidence for the efficacy of glucocorticoids in patients with CM and MOH. Treatment with monoclonal antibodies achieved high transition rates from medication overuse to non-overuse. However, further research is needed to evaluate the additional benefit of these new agents.

Management of chronic migraine

Chronic migraine is a neurologic disorder associated with considerable disability, lost productivity, and a profound economic burden worldwide. The past five years have seen a dramatic expansion in new treatments for this often challenging condition, among them calcitonin gene related peptide antagonists and neuromodulatory devices. This review outlines the epidemiology of and diagnostic criteria and risk factors for chronic migraine. It discusses evidence based drug and non-drug treatments, their advantages and disadvantages, and the principles of patient centered care for adults with chronic migraine, with attention to differential diagnosis and comorbidities, clinical reasoning, initiation and monitoring, cost, and availability. It discusses the international guidelines on drug treatment for chronic migraine and evaluates non-drug treatments including behavioral and complementary therapies and lifestyle modifications. Finally, it discusses the management of chronic migraine in special populations, including pediatrics, pregnancy, and older people, and considers future questions and emerging research in the field.

Migraine and Current Pharmacologic Management

In light of the multiple pharmacologic alternatives for migraine management, the adverse effects associated with different treatment regimens, and their varying efficacy, it is vital to undertake ongoing evaluations and seek a tailored therapeutic strategy. This case report describes two patients who presented with classic migraine headaches, with the first responding to both abortive and prophylactic migraine medications and the second, with status migrainosus-like presentation, responding to the newer antimigraine agents. We also examined current pharmacological therapeutic options and existing recommendations, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses. This case review exemplifies how treatment in the last 10 years and success in medications used for abortive and prophylactic therapy are evolving from the older agents to newer agents like the recently approved calcitonin gene receptor protein monoclonal antibody inhibitors.

Outpatient Approach to Resistant and Refractory Migraine in Children and Adolescents: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is one of the top reasons for consulting a pediatric neurologist. Although the majority of children and adolescents who receive evidence-based first-line interventions for migraine will improve substantially, a subset of patients develop resistant or refractory migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we summarize the level of evidence for a variety of acute and preventive treatment options to consider in children and adolescents with resistant or refractory migraine. We describe the level of evidence for interventional procedures (onabotulinumtoxinA injections, greater occipital and other nerve blocks), neuromodulation (single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, external trigeminal nerve stimulation, remote electrical neuromodulation, and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists (anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants), psychological therapies, and manual therapies (acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, massage and physical therapy, and spinal manipulation).

Factors Associated with Over-the-Counter Analgesic Overuse among Individuals Experiencing Headache

The prevalence of chronic daily headache (CDH) worldwide is 4−5%. Treatment for CDH with prophylaxis and abortive medications is often delayed, increasing disease severity. Consequently, increased usage of over-the-counter (OTC) analgesics can lead to medication overuse headache (MOH). This study aimed to assess factors affecting OTC analgesic overuse causing headaches. Methodology: A cross-sectional structured survey was conducted using voluntary response sampling. Among 1177 respondents, 459 individuals with headache were enrolled in the study. Results: Most participants were female (73.5%), almost half were aged 20−39 years (48.1%), and over half used OTC analgesics (56%). A significant association was found between OTC analgesic overuse and factors, such as chronic disease (p = 0.007), working status (p = 0.015), smoking (p = 0.02), headache frequency >15 days per month (p = 0.000), migraine-type headache (p = 0.01), preventive medicine use (p = 0.018), and emergency department visit (p = 0.018). Conclusion: OTC analgesic overuse among individuals with headache is affected by several factors, including the presence of chronic diseases, working status, smoking, and migraine-type headaches. However, preventive medicine and emergency department visits were considered to have protective effects. Health care providers should screen patients for MOH, increase their awareness, and follow MOH guidelines to treat chronic headache.

The association between onabotulinumtoxinA and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a reliable option for the optimal treatment of chronic migraine

Chronic migraine (CM) is a great challenge for physicians dealing with headaches. Despite the introduction of the monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) acting against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) that has revolutionized the treatment of CM, some patients still experience an incomplete relief. So, the association of two preventive treatments may be a reliable option for these patients. So, onabotulinumtoxinA (BT-A) and anti-CGRP mAbs may be used together, and some pre-clinical and clinical evidence of an additive action of the 2 drugs is emerging. In particular, since BT-A acts mainly on C-fibers and anti-CGRP mAbs on Aδ ones, their association may prevent the wearing-off phenomenon of BT-A, thus giving an additional benefit in those patients experiencing an incomplete response to BT-A alone. Despite this, the clinical studies available in the literature have a small sample size, often a retrospective design, and are heterogeneous in terms of the outcomes chosen. Considering this, the evidence of a favorable effect of the association between BT-A and anti-CGRP mAbs is still scarce. Furthermore, this association is explicitly forbidden by many National regulatory agencies, due to the high costs of both treatments. Anyway, their association could help in reducing the burden associated with the most severe cases of CM, thus relieving the direct and indirect costs of this condition. More well-designed studies with big samples are needed to unveil the real therapeutic gain of this association. Moreover, pharmacoeconomics studies should be performed, to assess the economic suitability of this association.

Applying a biopsychosocial model to migraine: rationale and clinical implications

Migraine is a complex condition in which genetic predisposition interacts with other biological and environmental factors determining its course. A hyperresponsive brain cortex, peripheral and central alterations in pain processing, and comorbidities play a role from an individual biological standpoint. Besides, dysfunctional psychological mechanisms, social and lifestyle factors may intervene and impact on the clinical phenotype of the disease, promote its transformation from episodic into chronic migraine and may increase migraine-related disability.Thus, given the multifactorial origin of the condition, the application of a biopsychosocial approach in the management of migraine could favor therapeutic success. While in chronic pain conditions the biopsychosocial approach is already a mainstay of treatment, in migraine the biomedical approach is still dominant. It is instead advisable to carefully consider the individual with migraine as a whole, in order to plan a tailored treatment. In this review, we first reported an analytical and critical discussion of the biological, psychological, and social factors involved in migraine. Then, we addressed the management implications of the application of a biopsychosocial model discussing how the integration between non-pharmacological management and conventional biomedical treatment may provide advantages to migraine care.

Stigma and Chronic Pain

Stigma is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as "a mark of shame, disgrace or disapproval that results in an individual being rejected, discriminated against and excluded from participating in a number of different areas of society". Extensive literature searches have documented stigma in the context of health. Among the physical health conditions that are associated with stigma, chronic pain deserves particular attention. Stigma experienced by individuals with chronic pain affects their entire life. Literature identifies multiple dimensions or types of stigma, including public stigma, structural stigma and internalized stigma. Recent literature supports the biopsychosocial model of pain, according to which biological, psychological and sociocultural variables interact in a dynamic manner to shape an individual's response to chronic pain. Chronic pain affects a higher proportion of women than men around the world. There is an inadequate education of health care professionals regarding pain assessment and their insecurity to manage patients with chronic pain. A first-line intervention strategy could be to promote pain education and to expand knowledge and assessment of chronic pain, as recently highlighted for headache disorders, paradigmatically for resistant or refractory migraine, whose diagnosis, without an adequate education to understand the possible fluctuations of the disease, may have profound psychological implications with the idea of insolvability and contribute to stigmatizing the patient.

Refractory Headaches

Medication overuse headache (MOH), new daily persistent headache (NDPH), and persistent refractory headache attributed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection represent a significant burden in terms of disability and quality of life, and a challenge in terms of definition, pathophysiology, and treatment. Regarding MOH, prevention without withdrawal is not inferior to prevention with withdrawal. Preventive medications like topiramate, onabotulinumtoxinA, and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies improve chronic migraine with MOH regardless of withdrawal. The differential diagnosis of NDPH is broad and should be carefully examined. There are no guidelines for the treatment of NDPH, but options include a short course of steroids, nerve blocks, topiramate, nortriptyline, gabapentin, CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and onabotulinumtoxinA. The persistence of headache 3 months after SARS-CoV2 infection is a predictor of poor prognosis.

Recently approved and emerging drug options for migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

: Migraine occupies the first position regarding to the disability caused in female working population (15-49 years). Research in the field of prophylaxis of this pathology has made enormous strides in recent years.

AREAS COVERED

In this narrative review we retrace the most important scientific evidence regarding recently approved and emerging drug for prophylactic treatment of migraine. The purpose of this article is in fact to evaluate currently approved or emerging pharmacological agents for migraine prophylaxis. This review is based on literature published in peer review journal obtained through PubMed, Cochrane library, Clinicaltrials.gov and US FDA.

EXPERT OPINION

: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide signalling pathway (CGRP) have marked an innovation in prophylactic migraine therapy. The combination of Onabotulinumtoxin-A (OBTA) and mAbs appears to be an effective, but costly, therapeutic option for resistant cases. New classes of molecules like gepants and ditans seem to give exceptional results. In addition, new prophylactic drugs are emerging with several targets: the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), ion channels, several receptors coupled to G proteins, orexin, and glutamate. All these therapies will implement and improve migraine management, as well as personalized medicine for each patient.

Effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on central symptoms of migraine

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and observational studies with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine prodromal and accompanying symptoms. This information might help deciphering the biologics' pharmacodynamic and provide hints on migraine pathogenesis. Herein, we report the effects of erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab on attack prodromal and accompanying symptoms and on neurological and psychiatric traits. .

METHODS

An explorative, prospective, questionnaire-based study was completed by a cohort (n = 80) of patients with chronic migraine patients presenting a sustained reduction of ≥50% of Migraine Disability Assessment Score and ≥30% of monthly migraine days three months after anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies treatment.

RESULTS

The majority of patients experienced a complete prevention of migraine symptoms without evidence of initial onset followed by attack abortion. Few patients reported the recurrence of prodromal (from 10% to 12.5%) or accompanying (from 1.3% to 8.8%) symptoms without headache. All patients with migraine with aura reported a decrease of aura incidence. Sleep changes (51.2%), increase in appetite (20.0%) and weight (18.8%) as well as a reduction in stress (45.0%), anxiety (26.3%), and panic attacks (15%) were also reported.

CONCLUSION

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies seems to significantly impact brain functions of migraineurs, preventing not only migraine headache but also its anticipatory and accompanying symptoms.