Rethinking headache as a global public health case model for reaching the SDG 3 HEALTH by 2030

Synergism of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies and OnabotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Chronic Migraine: A Real-World Retrospective Chart Review

BACKGROUND

Many patients with chronic migraine do not achieve clinically meaningful improvement in their headache frequency with monotherapy. The burden associated with chronic migraine calls for a multifaceted treatment approach targeting multiple aspects of migraine pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of concurrent anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabot) treatment on median monthly migraine days (MMD) in patients with chronic migraine, through a retrospective study.

METHODS

The electronic medical records of Cleveland Clinic patients either concurrently (dual therapy) or consecutively (monotherapy) treated with anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot between June 2018 and November 2021 were extracted. Only adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) were included in this study. MMDs for 194 concurrently treated (86.6% female and a median [interquartile range] age of 51 [41-61] years) and 229 consecutively treated (88.2% female and median age of 47 [IQR 39-57] years) patients were examined at baseline, after first therapy of either anti-CGRP mAb or onabot, and following dual therapy for 3 consecutive months. The reduction of MMDs for each treatment group were compared. The same approach was utilized to compare consecutive monotherapy at separate times (n = 229) and dual-therapy groups.

RESULTS

The initial treatment of the dual-therapy group reduced the median (IQR) MMDs from 30 (30-30) to 15 (12-30) [p < 0.0001]. After initiation of dual therapy, the median MMDs was further decreased from 15 (12-30) to 8 (3-22) [p < 0.0001]. A majority [132/194 (68.0%)] of the dual-therapy patients reported a ≥ 50% reduction in MMD and 90/194 (46.4%) reported a ≥ 75% reduction. For the consecutive monotherapy group, median MMDs changed from a baseline of 30 (25-30) to 15 (8-25) from onabot monotherapy and decreased from 25 (15-30) to 12 (4-25) after anti-CGRP mAb monotherapy. Almost half (113/229 [49.3%] from onabot, and 104/229 [45.4%] from anti-CGRP mAb) of these patients achieved a ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs and a minority (38/229 [16.6%] from onabot, and 45/229 [19.7%] from anti-CGRP mAb) achieved a reduction of ≥ 75%. Additionally, dual therapy showed significant improvement in MMDs compared with monotherapy of either treatment (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Dual therapy of anti-CGRP mAbs and onabot may be more efficacious than monotherapy, possibly due to their synergistic mechanisms of action.

Cost Effectiveness of Fremanezumab in Episodic and Chronic Migraine Patients from a Japanese Healthcare Perspective

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Fremanezumab is an effective treatment for episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients in Japan, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of fremanezumab compared with standard of care (SOC) in previously treated EM and CM patients from a Japanese healthcare perspective.

METHODS

Estimated regression models were implemented in a probabilistic Markov model to inform effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life data for fremanezumab and SOC. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The adjusted Japanese healthcare perspective included productivity losses. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2022 Japanese Yen [¥]), and incremental outcomes including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Analyses were performed separately for the EM and CM patients and combined. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 2.0%.

RESULTS

The mean QALYs over a 25-year time horizon for the EM and CM populations combined were 13.03 for SOC and 13.15 for fremanezumab. The associated costs were ¥27,550,292 for SOC and ¥28,371,048 for fremanezumab. QALYs were higher and costs lower for EM patients compared with CM patients for both fremanezumab and SOC. The deterministic ICERs of fremanezumab versus SOC were ¥6,334,861 for EM, ¥7,393,824 for CM, and ¥6,530,398 for EM and CM combined. Indirect costs and choice of mean migraine days model distribution had a substantial impact on the ICER.

CONCLUSION

Using fremanezumab in a heterogeneous mixture of Japanese EM and CM patients resulted in a reduction of monthly migraine days and thus more QALYs compared with SOC. The cost effectiveness of fremanezumab versus SOC in EM and CM patients resulted in an ICER of ¥6,530,398, from an adjusted Japanese public healthcare perspective.

Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet 75 mg for acute treatment of migraine in adults from China: a subgroup analysis of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Rimegepant orally disintegrating tablet (ODT), an oral small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is indicated for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in the United States and other countries. Previously, a large clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of rimegepant ODT 75 mg for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China or South Korea. A post hoc subgroup analysis of this trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rimegepant for acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China.

METHODS

Eligible participants were ≥ 18 years of age and had a ≥ 1-year history of migraine, with 2 to 8 attacks of moderate or severe pain intensity per month and < 15 headache days per month during the 3 months before screening. Participants self-administered rimegepant ODT 75 mg or matching placebo to treat a single migraine attack of moderate or severe pain intensity. The co-primary endpoints were pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 h post-dose. Key secondary endpoints included pain relief at 2 h post-dose, ability to function normally at 2 h post-dose, use of rescue medication within 24 h post-dose, and sustained pain freedom from 2 to 24 h and 2 to 48 h post-dose. All p values were nominal. Safety was assessed via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), electrocardiograms, vital signs, and routine laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 1075 participants (rimegepant, n = 538; placebo, n = 537) were included in the subgroup analysis. Rimegepant was more effective than placebo for the co-primary endpoints of pain freedom (18.2% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0004) and freedom from the MBS (48.0% vs. 31.8%, p <  0.0001), as well as all key secondary endpoints. The incidence of TEAEs was comparable between the rimegepant (15.2%) and placebo (16.4%) groups. No signal of drug-induced liver injury was observed, and no study drug-related serious TEAEs were reported in the rimegepant group.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of rimegepant 75 mg rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults living in China, with safety and tolerability similar to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04574362 Date registered: 2020-10-05.

Targeting the PACAP-38 pathway is an emerging therapeutic strategy for migraine prevention

INTRODUCTION

The pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP-38) has emerged as a key mediator of migraine pathogenesis. PACAP-38 and its receptors are predominantly distributed in arteries, sensory and parasympathetic neurons of the trigeminovascular system. Phase 2 trials have tested human monoclonal antibodies designed to bind and inhibit PACAP-38 and the pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide type I (PAC1) receptor for migraine prevention.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the significance of the PACAP-38 pathway as a target in migraine prevention. English peer-reviewed articles were searched in PubMed, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov electronic databases.

EXPERT OPINION

A PAC1 receptor monoclonal antibody was not effective for preventing migraine in a proof-of-concept trial, paving the way for alternative strategies to be considered. Lu AG09222 is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PACAP-38 that was effective in preventing physiological responses of PACAP38 and reducing monthly migraine days in individuals with migraine. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the clinical utility, long-term safety and cost-effectiveness of therapies targeting the PACAP pathway.

The World Health Organization Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders and the headache revolution: from headache burden to a global action plan for headache disorders

The World Health Organization (WHO) Intersectoral Global Action Plan on Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was developed by WHO to address the worldwide challenges and gaps in provision of care and services for people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders and to ensure a comprehensive, coordinated response across sectors to the burden of neurologic diseases and to promote brain health across life-course. Headache disorders constitute the second most burdensome of all neurological diseases after stroke, but the first if young and midlife adults are taken into account. Despite the availability of a range of treatments, disability associated with headache disorders, and with migraine, remains very high. In addition, there are inequalities between high-income and low and middle income countries in access to medical care. In line with several brain health initiatives following the WHOiGAP resolution, herein we tailor the main pillars of the action plan to headache disorders: (1) raising policy prioritization and strengthen governance; (2) providing effective, timely and responsive diagnosis, treatment and care; (3) implementing strategies for promotion and prevention; (4) fostering research and innovation and strengthen information systems. Specific targets for future policy actions are proposed. The Global Action Plan triggered a revolution in neurology, not only by increasing public awareness of brain disorders and brain health but also by boosting the number of neurologists in training, raising research funding and making neurology a public health priority for policy makers. Reducing the burden of headache disorders will not only improve the quality of life and wellbeing of people with headache but also reduce the burden of neurological disorders increasing global brain health and, thus, global population health.

Health equity, care access and quality in headache - part 2

BACKGROUND

Headache disorders are a global public health concern affecting diverse populations. This review examines headache service organizations in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. It addresses global challenges in pharmacological headache treatment, with a focus on safety, tolerability, reproductive and child health, and outlines disparities in accessing innovative treatments worldwide.

MAIN BODY

Organized headache services are essential due to the wide prevalence and varying severity of headache disorders. The tiered headache service model is globally recognized, although its implementation varies based on financial and workforce considerations. Headache burden affects well-being, causing disability, economic challenges, and work limitations, irrespective of location or income. All nations still require improved diagnosis and treatment, and the majority of countries face obstacles including limited access, awareness, economic barriers, and inadequate health policies. Provided adequate internet availability, telemedicine could help improve health equity by expanding access to headache care, since it can offer patients access to services without lengthy waiting times or extensive travel and can provide healthcare unavailable in underserved areas due to staff shortages. Numerous health disparities restrict global access to many headache medications, especially impacting individuals historically excluded from randomized controlled trials, such as those with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions, as well as pregnant women. Furthermore, despite advancements in researching migraine treatments for young patients, the options for treatment remain limited. Access to headache treatment relies on factors like medication availability, approval, financial coverage, and healthcare provider expertise. Inadequate public awareness leads to neglect by policymakers and undertreatment by patients and healthcare providers. Global access discrepancies are exacerbated by the introduction of novel disease-specific medications, particularly impacting Asian, African, and Latin American nations excluded from clinical trials. While North America and Europe experience broad availability of migraine treatments, the majority of countries worldwide lack access to these therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare disparities, treatment access, and medication availability are concerning issues in headache medicine. Variations in national healthcare systems impact headache management, and costly innovative drugs are widening these gaps. Healthcare practitioners and experts should acknowledge these challenges and work towards minimizing access barriers for equitable global headache care in the future.