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

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Analysis to retreatment with monoclonal antibodies in chronic/episodic migraine: Real world data

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response to retreatment in patients with chronic/episodic migraine who discontinued therapy with erenumab/fremanezumab after one year of treatment.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, single-center, multidisciplinary study in patients with chronic/episodic migraine who received therapy with erenumab/fremanezumab for at least one year and discontinued it after achieving an adequate response (optimization). The evaluation of the response after retreatment included the following variables: migraine days per month, MIDAS and HIT-6 scales at the beginning of retreatment and 3 months later. The response was evaluated in different subgroups (episodic/chronic, erenumab/fremanezumab and time until retreatment).

RESULTS

48 patients were included. 70.8% (n=34) required retreatment with mAb, with a median of 3.9 (2.9-6.4) months until reintroduction. Clinical response after retreatment was achieved in 67.6% (n=23) of patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the analyzed subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Interruption of treatment with erenumab/fremanezumab for chronic/episodic migraine produces a clinical worsening of the disease requiring retreatment in most cases, approximately after 4 months. Two out of three patients respond positively after restarting monoclonal therapy. This response does not appear to be related to the type of migraine, the specific monoclonal antibody prescribed, or the time to retreatment.

Analysis of retreatment with monoclonal antibodies in chronic/episodic migraine: Real world data

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the response to retreatment in patients with chronic/episodic migraine who discontinued therapy with erenumab/fremanezumab after 1 year of treatment.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective, single-center, multidisciplinary study in patients with chronic/episodic migraine who received therapy with erenumab/fremanezumab for at least 1 year and discontinued it after achieving an adequate response (optimization). The evaluation of the response after retreatment included the following variables: DMM, MIDAS, and HIT-6 scales at the beginning of retreatment and 3 months later. The response was evaluated in different subgroups (episodic/chronic, erenumab/fremanezumab, and time until retreatment).

RESULTS

48 patients were included. 70.8% (n=34) required retreatment with mAb, with a median of 3.9 (2.9-6.4) months until reintroduction. Clinical response after retreatment was achieved in 67.6% (n=23) of patients. No statistically significant differences were found in the analyzed subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Interruption of treatment with erenumab/fremanezumab for chronic/episodic migraine produces a clinical worsening of the disease requiring retreatment in most cases, approximately after 4 months. Two out of three patients respond positively after restarting monoclonal therapy. This response does not appear to be related to the type of migraine, the specific monoclonal antibody prescribed, or the time to retreatment.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Real-life experiences with galcanezumab and predictors for treatment response in Turkey

BACKGROUND

The complexity of clinical practice extends far beyond the controlled settings of trials, and there is a need for real-world studies aimed at identifying which patients will respond to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in different countries. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in treating migraine in a real-life setting in Turkey, as well as identify predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

A total of 476 patients who diagnosed with migraine according to ICHD-3 criteria and treated with galcanezumab by headache specialists were voluntarily participated in this cross-sectional study. Galcanezumab is indicated for the prevention of migraine in adults who have at least 4 monthly migraine days in Turkey. All patients filled out a survey on Google Form that comprised 54 questions, addressing various aspects such as demographics, migraine characteristics, previous use of acute symptomatic medication, failures with preventive drug classes, comorbidities, most bothersome symptoms, as well as the interictal burden of migraine.

RESULTS

Among the participants, 89.3% reported that galcanezumab treatment was beneficial for them. A decrease in the frequency (80.0%), severity (85.7%), and acute medication usage for migraine attacks (71.4%) was reported with galcanezumab treatment. An adverse effect related to galcanezumab was reported in 16.3% of cases, but no serious adverse reactions were observed. Remarkably, 14.3% of participants reported no longer experiencing any headaches, and 18.9% did not require any acute treatment while receiving galcanezumab treatment. A logistic regression model showed that male gender, lack of ictal nausea, and previous failure of more than 2 prophylactic agents may predict the non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The first large series from Turkey showed that galcanezumab treatment is safe and effective in most of the patients diagnosed with migraine by headache experts in the real-life setting. Patients reported a significant decrease in both ictal and interictal burden of migraine and expressed satisfaction with this treatment.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Galcanezumab in the Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Real-World Studies

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have established the efficacy of galcanezumab, an antibody binding calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand, in the preventive treatment of migraine. The objective was to summarize real-world data evaluating galcanezumab in the preventive treatment of migraine, to complement RCT results with evidence observed in clinical practice.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify real-world studies evaluating galcanezumab in the treatment for patients with migraine.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were identified; some only evaluated galcanezumab, and others used pooled data from multiple anti-CGRP antibodies. The studies recruited diverse patient populations, including patients who had failed multiple prior preventive therapies. Treatment was associated with significant reductions from baseline in monthly migraine days and monthly headache days by 4.3 to 12.9 and 3.1 to 13.9, respectively. These values were numerically greater than those reported in most galcanezumab RCTs. Significant decreases from baseline were evident within the first month of treatment, and efficacy was maintained throughout the follow-up periods, ranging from 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was also associated with improvements in other efficacy end points, including decreased headache pain intensity, reduction in analgesic use, and improvements in daily functioning and quality of life. Functionality scores, as assessed by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale questionnaire, decreased by 27 to 75 points from baseline at 3 to 12 months. Galcanezumab was associated with a low discontinuation rate and higher rates of persistence compared with standard migraine preventive treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide complementary data that galcanezumab is effective across the diverse patient populations observed in routine clinical practice.

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.

Effectiveness of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies in the Prevention of Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohort Studies

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Migraine is a neurological disorder characterized by episodes of moderate-to-severe headache. The emergence of drugs derived from monoclonal antibodies specific for the calcitonin gene has brought forth a therapeutic option for patients in whom the traditional treatments have failed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies in the prevention of migraine through a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.

METHODS

A literature search for evidence was performed in electronic databases for observational studies that evaluated adult patients with migraine receiving calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (e.g. erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab) and reported effectiveness outcomes (mean reduction in monthly migraine/headache days, and proportion of patients with 50% or greater reduction in migraine/headache days).

RESULTS

During the screening process, 47 records were included for data extraction and qualitative and quantitative analyses. The overall rate of patients with a reduction of at least 50% of mean monthly migraine days was 54% (95% CI 49-59%), and overall mean monthly migraine reduction was about 7.7 days (95% CI 8.4-7.0 days). Regarding the outcome ≥ 50% reduction in mean monthly headache reduction, the overall rate of patients with a reduction of at least 50% was 57% (95% CI 48-64%), and the overall mean monthly headache reduction was approximately 8.8 days (95% CI 10.1-7.5 days). Subgroup analyses considering the drug treatment used and type of migraine were consistent with previous results.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies in real-world studies to prevent migraine demonstrates promising effectiveness outcomes, in agreement with those reported in previously published randomized clinical trial reports.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs) and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are new mechanism-based prophylactic drugs developed to address the unmet needs of pre-existing migraine prophylactic medications. However, several uncertainties remain in their real-world applications.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the literature on the use of CGRP-targeting novel therapeutics in specific situations, including non-responders to prior therapy, combination therapy, switching, and treatment termination. In the case of lack of available literature, we made suggestions based on clinical reasoning.

RESULTS

High-quality evidence supports the use of all available anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) in non-responders to prior therapy. There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the efficacy of combining CGRP(-R) mAbs or gepants with oral migraine prophylactic agents or botulinum toxin A. Switching from one CGRP(-R) mAb to another might benefit a fraction of patients. Currently, treatment termination depends on reimbursement policies, and the optimal mode of termination is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

New prophylactic drugs that target the CGRP pathway are promising treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. Individualized approaches using a combination of new substances with oral prophylactic drugs or botulinum toxin A, switching between new drugs, and adjusting treatment duration could enhance excellence in practice.

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

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

Monoclonal Antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review of Real-World Data

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of real-world outcomes for anti-CGRP-mAbs.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed for real-world data of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, or eptinezumab in patients with migraines.

RESULTS

We identified 134 publications (89 retrospective), comprising 10 pharmaco-epidemiologic and 83 clinic-based studies, 38 case reports, and 3 other articles. None of the clinic-based studies provided follow-up data over more than one year in more than 200 patients. Findings suggest that there are reductions in health insurance claims and days with sick-leave as well as better treatment adherence with anti-CGRP-mAbs. Effectiveness, reported in 77 clinic-based studies, was comparable to randomized controlled trials. A treatment pause was associated with an increase in migraine frequency, and switching to another antibody resulted in a better response in some of the patients. Adverse events and safety issues were addressed in 86 papers, including 24 single case reports.

CONCLUSION

Real-world data on anti-CGRP-mAbs are limited by retrospective data collection, small patient numbers, and short follow-up periods. The majority of papers seem to support good effectiveness and tolerability of anti-CGRP-mAbs in the real-world setting. There is an unmet need for large prospective real-world studies providing long-term follow-ups of patients treated with anti-CGRP-mAbs.

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

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