Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society on the treatment of chronic migraine

Comparative efficacy and safety of different pharmacological therapies to medication overuse headache: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists whether prophylactic drugs are necessary in the treatment of medication overuse headache (MOH).

OBJECTIVES

To determine comparative benefits and safety of available drugs for the treatment of MOH including elimination of medication overuse (MO).

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials though an extensive literature search comparing different drug effects on MOH. A random-effect network meta-analysis was conducted to rank comparative effects of interventions. Outcome improvements from baseline include responder rate defined as ≥ 50% reduction of headache frequency, proportion of patients who revert to no acute medication overuse (nMO), and reduction in monthly headache and acute medication intake frequency. Certainty of evidence was classified using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development & Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Of 8,248 screened publications, 28 were eligible for analysis. Topiramate was found to be beneficial based on its responder rate (odds ratios [OR] 4.93), headache frequency (weighted mean difference [WMD] -5.53) and acute medication intake frequency (WMD - 6.95), with fewer safety issues (i.e., tolerability, or more adverse events) than placebo (OR 0.20). Fremanezumab, galcanezumab and botulinum toxin type A (BTA) were beneficial for increased responder rates (OR 3.46 to 3.07, 2.95, and 2.57, respectively). For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and BTA were superior to placebo (OR 2.75 to 2.64, 1.87 to1.57, and 1.55, respectively). Eptinezumab, fremanezumab, erenumab 140 mg, and BTA were more efficacious than erenumab 70 mg (OR 3.84 to 3.70, 2.60 to 2.49, 2.44 and 2.16, respectively) without differences in safety and tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Despite lower safety and greater intolerability issues, topiramate has large beneficial effects probably on increasing responder rates, reducing headache frequency, and might reduce monthly medication intake frequency. Fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab are promising for increasing responder rates. For reversion to nMO, eptinezumab has large beneficial effects, fremanezumab has a smaller effect. BTA might have a moderate effect on responder rates and probably has a small effect on reversion to nMO.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021193370.

Real-world observations and impacts of Chinese herbal medicine for migraine: results of a registry-based cohort study

Background: Migraine is a prevalent, recurrent condition with substantial disease burden. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been used frequently for migraine in controlled clinical settings. This study is to summarise the characteristics of patients who seek clinical care in a tertiary Chinese medicine hospital in China; to gather their preferences and values of using CHM; to explore the effect of CHM for migraine and its comorbidities in a real-world setting, and to collect first-hand expertise of clinicians' practice pattern in prescribing CHM for migraine. Methods: This registry-based cohort study was prospectively conducted at Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine from December 2020 to May 2022. Adult migraine patients seeking their initial anti-migraine clinical care at the hospital were consecutively recruited and followed up for 12 weeks. Practitioners specialised in headache management prescribed individualised treatments without research interference. Standardised case report forms were employed to gather information on patients' preferences and perspective of seeking clinical care, as well as to assess participants' migraine severity, comorbidities, and quality of life, at 4-weeks intervals. Various analytical methods were utilised based on the computed data. Results: In this study, we observed 248 participants. Of these, 73 received CHM treatment for 28 days or longer. Notably, these participants exhibited a greater disease severity, compared to those treated with CHM for less than 28 days. Of the 248 participants, 83.47% of them expected CHM would effectively reduce the severity of their migraine, around 50% expected effects for migraine-associated comorbidities, while 51.61% expressing concerns about potential side effects. CHM appeared to be effective in reducing monthly migraine days and pain intensity, improving patients' quality of life, and potentially reducing comorbid anxiety, with a minimum of 28 days CHM treatment. Herbs such as gan cao, gui zhi, chuan xiong, fu ling, bai zhu, yan hu suo, etc. were frequently prescribed for migraine, based on patients' specific symptoms. Conclusion: CHM appeared to be beneficial for migraine and comorbid anxiety in real-world clinical practice when used continuously for 28 days or more. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov, identifier ChiCTR2000041003.

Incorporation of health technologies: The importance of drug treatment of primary headaches in the Brazilian unified health system

Incorporation of health technologies: The importance of drug treatment of primary headaches in the Brazilian unified health system

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Headache Screening Questionnaire into Brazilian Portuguese

BACKGROUND

The Headache Screening Questionnaire (HSQ) was created and validated to enable health professionals to screen for migraine and tension-type headaches.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to translate and cross-culturally adapt the HSQ, creating the Brazilian version of the HSQ (HSQ-BR).

DESIGN

This was a cross-sectional study.

METHOD

The Brazilian version of the HSQ was developed following the processes of translation, synthesis, back-translation, expert committee review, and pre-testing. The translation phase involved two independent translators whose mother language was Brazilian Portuguese and who also were fluent in Dutch. The back-translation phase involved two independent translators whose mother language was Dutch and who also were fluent in Portuguese. The expert committee based their decisions on semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalences. To verify the comprehension of the questionnaire, 60 subjects (73.3% women) with headaches with a mean age of 32.8 ± 12.0 years, participated in the pre-test phase.

RESULTS

During the translation process, some terms and expressions were changed to obtain cultural equivalence to the original HSQ. The process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the HSQ to the Brazilian culture and Portuguese language, including its scoring algorithms for migraine and tension-type headache, was successfully concluded, as the comprehension of each item of the questionnaire was over 90% on the pre-test.

CONCLUSION

The HSQ-BR has been created.

Consensus of the Brazilian Headache Society (SBCe) for the Prophylactic Treatment of Episodic Migraine: part I

The Brazilian Headache Society (Sociedade Brasileira de Cefaleia, SBCe, in Portuguese) nominated a Committee of Authors with the aim of establishing a consensus with recommendations regarding prophylactic treatment for episodic migraine based on articles published in the worldwide literature, as well as personal experience. Migraine affects 1 billion people around the world and more than 30 million Brazilians. In addition, it is an underdiagnosed and undertreated disorder. It is well known within the medical community of neurologists, and especially among headache specialists, that there is a need to disseminate knowledge about prophylactic treatment for migraine. For this purpose, together with the need for drug updates and to expand knowledge of the disease itself (frequency, intensity, duration, impact and perhaps the progression of migraine), this Consensus was developed, following a full online methodology, by 12 groups who reviewed and wrote about the pharmacological categories of the drugs used and, at the end of the process, met to read and establish conclusions for this document. The drug classes studied were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) antibodies, beta-blockers, antihypertensives, calcium channel inhibitors, other antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRIs, and dual-action antidepressants), other drugs, and polytherapy. Hormonal treatment and anti-inflammatories and triptans in minimum prophylaxis schemes (miniprophylaxis) will be covered in a specific chapter. The drug classes studied for part I of the Consensus were: anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies, and beta-blockers.

An Overview of Systematic Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicine in the Treatment of Migraines

Background: In the past, systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have been used to assess the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the treatment of migraines. However, robust conclusions have not yet been determined because of variations in the methodological and evidence quality of these SRs/MAs.

Objectives: We aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs and evaluate the available evidence of the efficacy of CHM treatment of migraines.

Methods: We searched eight electronic databases from inception until 10 January 2022, without language restrictions. Two researchers were independently responsible for study screening and data extraction. The methodological and reporting quality of SRs/MAs were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). The evidence quality of included SRs/MAs was evaluated by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). In addition, a descriptive analysis of the included SRs/MAs was included.

Results: Sixteen SRs/MAs, including 69 outcomes, were finally included in this overview. Data synthesis of the included SRs/MAs outcomes showed that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was beneficial in the improvement of migraines. In comparison, there was conflicting evidence for the effectiveness of CHM used alone. CHM was better than WM in improving responder rate and acute medication usage and was superior to placebo in improving migraine days, responder rate, and migraine duration. However, there was insufficient evidence to verify the effectiveness of CHM for migraine treatment regarding pain severity and migraine frequency. All the included SRs/MAs showed extremely low methodological and reporting quality. The results of the GRADE system indicated that the quality of most of the pooled evidence was very low.

Conclusions: CHM may be beneficial in improving migraines and can be used as a complementary therapy. However, we should treat the conclusions of the evaluated SRs/MAs cautiously because of the low quality of evidence. Future SRs/MAs should focus on improving methodological and reporting quality. High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to provide strong evidence for the efficacy of CHM treatment of migraines.

Why are CGRP monoclonal antibodies not yet the first line treatment in migraine prevention?

Migraine is a prevalent disorder and a cause of high disability, influenced by modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Comorbid and psychiatric illnesses are prevalent in migraine patients and should be considered when choosing preventive drugs. There have been unforeseen problems with the use of preventive treatment of migraine with oral drugs, mainly due to side-effects that cannot be tolerated and lack of efficacy, leading to high discontinuation rates. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown better tolerance profiles, based on the low dropout rates in clinical trials due to adverse events. First-line therapy is a term most expressed in some medical specialties that adopt standardized protocol treatments and may not be suitable for treating migraine. Regarding efficacy, mAbs don't seem to perform much better than the current prophylactic oral drugs in reduction of monthly migraine days compared to placebo. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway have been prescribed recently, which raises some concern about their safety in the long term. Only side effects observation will confirm whether CGRP blockade causes susceptibility to severe side-effects, at least to specific subpopulations. CGRP may play a role in regulating uteroplacental blood flow and myometrial and uterine relaxation, as well as blood pressure control, raising the suspicion that its blockade could cause complications during pregnancy. Recent guidelines retain the recommendation of starting preventive treatment of migraine with oral drugs. Both the fact that it is new and costs are the reason why guidelines recommend the prescription of mAbs only after failure of at least two oral drugs.

Long-term treatment with galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: results from the open-label extension of the REGAIN study

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, was found to be safe and efficacious for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine based on the randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind period of the REGAIN study. Long-term safety and efficacy were assessed in an open-label extension.

METHODS

Patients 18-65 years old with chronic migraine completing the 3-month double-blind period of REGAIN could enter a 9-month open-label extension (OLE; months 4-12). Upon entering the OLE, patients received a 240-mg galcanezumab loading dose, then 120 mg at the next month, with flexible dosing thereafter (120 or 240 mg/month). The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in the number of monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12. Other endpoints included response rates (based on percent reduction in monthly migraine headache days from double-blind baseline to month 12), safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Of patients who completed double-blind treatment, 1022 (99%) entered the OLE, with 81% completing month 12. From a baseline of 19.4 monthly migraine headache days at the beginning of the double-blind period, patients at month 12 in the previous placebo, 120-mg, and 240-mg galcanezumab groups had a mean change of -8.5, -9.0, and -8.0, respectively (SE = 0.43 to 0.55, within-group p's < .001). At month 12, the percentage of patients with ≥50% response was 57%, 57%, and 53%, respectively. Percentage with ≥75% response was 32%, 31%, and 30%, respectively. Percentage with 100% response was 8%, 6%, and 6%, respectively. There were no significant new safety findings during the open-label period. The incidence of discontinuation from the OLE due to adverse events was 5%.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab was effective, safe, and well-tolerated, with high adherence, for up to 12 months of treatment in patients with chronic migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02614261; www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02614261.

It is time anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies be considered first-line prophylaxis for migraine

The result of more than thirty years of research, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are currently the state of the art for migraine preventive therapy. Their efficacy and safety, supported by an already large and growing body of evidence, are added by many other advantages: an early onset of action, favorable posology, negligible pharmacological interaction, and a broad-reaching efficacy in many challenging clinical contexts. When compared to standard prophylactics, these novel medications seem at least as efficacious, clearly more tolerable and, consequently, with a superior adherence profile. Furthermore, recently published analyses indicate that they are cost-effective, especially among those with chronic migraine. Yet, current guidelines endorse their use only after multiple other preventives have failed or have been deemed not tolerable. Although this recommendation may have been sensible at first, the now available data strongly point that time has come for anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies to be acknowledged as first-line treatments for migraine patients with severe disability. For these individuals, delaying treatment until several other alternatives have failed incurs in significant losses, both economically and to many relevant aspects of their lives.

Headache catastrophization and its relationship with disability, depression, anxiety, stress and sleep quality

IntroductionCross-sectional studies on headache have not yet explored the influence of pain catastrophizing and associations with other psychosomatic comorbidities. The migraine-affected group of individuals was frequently associated with other clinical conditions such as depression, anxiety, stress, and poor sleep quality. These conditions exert a significant influence on carrier’s coping with daily pain and helplessness, since disability hampers work and daily living activities and overly burden individual, their family, society and the health system. Identifying the elements that contribute to disability is crucial in assisting interventions that minimize these conditions.ObjectiveThe aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate how the combination of migraine and catastrophizing, associated with functional disability, depression, anxiety, stress, and sleep quality in college students, can influence the perception of pain.MethodsThe 340 participants were selected by drawing lots, in which individuals with primary headaches were assigned. Therefore, the final analysis sample consisted of 288 individuals. The sample was divided into Group with migraine and Group with other primary headaches, with the application of scales: HIT-6 and the scale of pain catastrophizing.ResultsOf the 360 participants, 20 losses were recorded due to inadequate completion of scales, leaving out 340 participants. Of these, 52/340 (15.25%) did not suffer from headaches. 288/340 (84.7%) participants that reported headaches were included in this study, of which 133/288 (46.2%) had migraine, and 155/288 (53.8%) had non-migraine headache. Women who had migraine attacks were those with the most intense anxious symptoms, worse sleep quality, and catastrophization. The odds ratio of catastrophizing was higher for the Migraine Group. Linear and multivariate logistic regression revealed that the greater the presence of catastrophizing, the greater the occurrence of migraine. Catastrophizing had a greater power of contribution related to the disability generated by the crises in the group of migrainous (β = 0.564). The migraine group has a greater perception of pain.ConclusionHigher catastrophization was also associated with a greater intensity of depressive and anxiety symptoms, higher perceived stress, and worse quality of sleep in headache-affected individuals in our study.

FRAMES protocol versus simple advice for medication-overuse headache: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial

It is central to the management of patients with Medication-overuse headache that they reverse their behavior regarding the frequent use of pain medication. The objective of this study was to compare two counseling techniques for treating patients with Medication-overuse headache (MOH). This was a randomized, blind, controlled clinical trial that compared a structured (FRAMES) and unstructured counseling, for the treatment of MOH. Patients were assessed before the counseling and then again four and eight weeks after it. Semi-structured interview, headache diary, the Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were used. Primary endpoints were the following: number of patients who stopped medication overuse; days with acute medication use; HIT-6; the number of patients who returned for consultations. Secondary endpoints were as follows: days per month of headache; 50% reduction in monthly days with acute medication use; the number of patients with less than 15 days of headache. Thirty-seven patients were allocated to the "FRAMES Group" and 33 to the "Control Group". There was no difference regarding primary or secondary outcomes between the two groups. There was a significant reduction in the frequency of headache and the number of days using pain medication in the first and second months of follow-up compared to baseline in both groups. There was a significant reduction in the HIT-6 in the first and second months of follow-up compared to baseline in the FRAMES Group, but not in the control group. Patients in both counseling groups significantly decreased the use of pain medications and the frequency of their headaches.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting CGRP: From Clinical Studies to Real-World Evidence-What Do We Know So Far?

Now more than ever is the time of monoclonal antibody use in neurology. In headaches, disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments existed only for symptomatic management of migraines (i.e., triptans), while the standard prophylactic anti-migraine treatments consist of non-specific and repurposed drugs that share limited safety profiles and high risk for interactions with other medications, resulting in rundown adherence rates. Recent advances in headache science have increased our understanding of the role of calcitonin gene relate peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) pathways in cephalic pain neurotransmission and peripheral or central sensitization, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) or small molecules targeting these neuropeptides or their receptors. Large scale randomized clinical trials confirmed that inhibition of the CGRP system attenuates migraine, while the PACAP mediated nociception is still under scientific and clinical investigation. In this review, we provide the latest clinical evidence for the use of anti-CGRP in migraine prevention with emphasis on efficacy and safety outcomes from Phase III and real-world studies.