Increased CX3CL1 in cerebrospinal fluid and ictal serum t-tau elevations in migraine: results from a cross-sectional exploratory case-control study

BACKGROUND

To date, migraine is diagnosed exclusively based on clinical criteria, but fluid biomarkers are desirable to gain insight into pathophysiological processes and inform clinical management. We investigated the state-dependent profile of fluid biomarkers for neuroaxonal damage and microglial activation as two potentially relevant aspects in human migraine pathophysiology.

METHODS

This exploratory study included serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples of patients with migraine during the headache phase (ictally) (n = 23), between attacks (interictally) (n = 16), and age/sex-matched controls (n = 19). Total Tau (t-Tau) protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were measured with the Neurology 4-plex kit on a Single Molecule Array SR-X Analyzer (Simoa® SR-X, Quanterix Corp., Lexington, MA). Markers of microglial activation, C-X3-C motif chemokine ligand 1 (CX3CL1) and soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), were assessed using an immunoassay.

RESULTS

Concentrations of CX3CL1 but not sTREM2 were significantly increased both ictally and interictally in CSF but not in serum in comparison to the control cohort (p = 0.039). ROC curve analysis provided an AUC of 0.699 (95% CI 0.563 to 0.813, p = 0.007). T-Tau in serum but not in CSF was significantly increased in samples from patients taken during the headache phase, but not interictally (effect size: η2 = 0.121, p = 0.038). ROC analysis of t-Tau protein in serum between ictal and interictal collected samples provided an AUC of 0.729 (95% CI 0.558 to 0.861, p = 0.006). The other determined biomarkers for axonal damage were not significantly different between the cohorts in either serum or CSF.

DISCUSSION

CX3CL1 in CSF is a novel potential fluid biomarker of migraine that is unrelated to the headache status. Serum t-Tau is linked to the headache phase but not interictal migraine. These data need to be confirmed in a larger hypothesis-driven prospective study.

Impact of a reimbursement policy change on treatment with erenumab in migraine - a real-world experience from Germany

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway are safe and effective treatments for migraine prevention. However, the high cost of these novel therapies has led to reimbursement policies requiring patients to try multiple traditional preventives before access. In Germany, a recent change in insurance policy significantly expanded coverage for the CGRP receptor mAb erenumab, enabling migraine patients who failed just one prior prophylactic medication to receive this mAb. Here, we compare the clinical response to treatment with erenumab in migraine patients treated using the old and new coverage policy.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included CGRP-mAb naïve patients with episodic or chronic migraine, who started erenumab at our headache center according to either the old or the new insurance policy and received at least 3 consecutive injections. Headache diaries and electronic documentation were used to evaluate reductions in monthly headache and migraine days (MHD and MMD) and ≥ 50% and ≥ 30% responder rates at month 3 (weeks 9-12) of treatment.

RESULTS

We included 146 patients who received erenumab according to the old policy and 63 patients that were treated using the new policy. At weeks 9-12 of treatment, 37.7% of the old policy group had a 50% or greater reduction in MHD, compared to 63.5% of the new policy group (P < 0.001). Mean reduction in MHD was 5.02 days (SD = 5.46) and 6.67 days (SD = 5.32, P = 0.045) in the old and new policy cohort, respectively. After propensity score matching, the marginal effect of the new policy on treatment outcome was 2.29 days (standard error, SE: 0.715, P = 0.001) more reduction in MHD, and 30.1% (SE: 10.6%, P = 0.005) increase in ≥ 50% response rate for MHD.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting erenumab earlier in the course of migraine progression in a real-world setting may lead to a better response than starting after multiple failed prophylactic attempts. Continually gathering real-world evidence may help policymakers in deciding how readily to cover CGRP-targeted therapies in migraine prevention.

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

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development sets out, through 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a path for the prosperity of people and the planet. SDG 3 in particular aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and includes several targets to enhance health. This review presents a "headache-tailored" perspective on how to achieve SDG 3 by focusing on six specific actions: targeting chronic headaches; reducing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting the education of healthcare professionals; granting access to medication in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC); implementing training and educational opportunities for healthcare professionals in low and middle income countries; building a global alliance against headache disorders. Addressing the burden of headache disorders directly impacts on populations' health, as well as on the possibility to improve the productivity of people aged below 50, women in particular. Our analysis pointed out several elements, and included: moving forward from frequency-based parameters to define headache severity; recognizing and managing comorbid diseases and risk factors; implementing a disease management multi-modal management model that incorporates pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; early recognizing and managing the overuse of acute pain-relieving medications; promoting undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education of healthcare professionals with specific training on headache; and promoting a culture that favors the recognition of headaches as diseases with a neurobiological basis, where this is not yet recognized. Making headache care more sustainable is an achievable objective, which will require multi-stakeholder collaborations across all sectors of society, both health-related and not health-related. Robust investments will be needed; however, considering the high prevalence of headache disorders and the associated disability, these investments will surely improve multiple health outcomes and lift development and well-being globally.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical reappraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention - part 3: topiramate

OBJECTIVE

Topiramate is a repurposed first-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically re-appraise the existing evidence supporting the efficacy and tolerability of topiramate.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis as of August 13, 2022, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Randomized controlled trials in adult patients that used topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of migraine, with placebo as active comparator, were included. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved studies and extracted all data. Outcomes of interest were the 50% responder rates, the reduction in monthly migraine days, and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. Results were pooled and meta-analyzed, with sensitivity analysis based on the risk of bias of the studies, the monthly migraine days at baseline, and the previous use of other prophylactic treatments. Certainty evidence was judged according to the GRADE framework.

RESULTS

Eight out of 10,826 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria, accounting for 2,610 randomized patients. Six studies included patients with episodic migraine and two with chronic migraine. Topiramate dose ranged from 50 to 200 mg/day, and all studies included a placebo arm. There was a high certainty that topiramate: 1) increased the proportion of patients who achieved a 50% responder rate in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo [relative risk: 1.61 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-2.01); absolute risk difference: 168 more per 1,000 (95% CI: 80 to 278 more)]; 2) was associated with 0.99 (95% CI: 1.41-0.58) fewer migraine days than placebo; 3) and had a higher proportion of patients with adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation [absolute risk difference 80 patients more per 1,000 (95% CI: 20 to 140 more patients)].

CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence of the efficacy of topiramate in the prophylaxis of migraine, albeit its use poses a risk of adverse events that may lead to treatment discontinuation, with a negative effect on patient satisfaction and adherence to care.

Near-death experiences are associated with rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions in migraine patients, independent of migraine aura

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Migraine aura, near-death experiences (NDEs), and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep intrusions might share common mechanisms. Here, we investigated the prevalence of NDEs and REM sleep intrusions in people with migraine. We hypothesized that NDEs and REM sleep intrusions are more prevalent in migraine patients with aura than in those without.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cross-sectional cohort study at a tertiary headache center, based on a prespecified sample size (n = 808). Migraine patients completed a series of questionnaires, including questions about demographic and headache characteristics, the 16-item Greyson NDE scale, four questions about REM sleep intrusions, and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale 21 (DASS-21).

RESULTS

Of 808 migraine patients (mean age 44.4 ± 13.3 years, 87.0% women), 353 (43.7%) had a current or previous history of migraine aura. Prevalence of NDE was 2.7% and not different in patients with and without aura (2.8% vs. 2.6%; p > 0.999). REM sleep intrusions were reported by 5.4% of participants and in a similar proportion of patients with and without aura (6.3% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.43). However, participants with REM sleep intrusions had had an NDE more often than participants without REM sleep intrusions (n = 5/44, 11.4% vs. n = 17/754, 2.2%; p = 0.005). Higher DASS-21 scores were associated with REM sleep intrusions (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this tertiary center cohort study, the prevalence of NDE and REM sleep intrusions was not influenced by migraine aura status. However, we identified an association between NDE and REM sleep intrusions, which corroborates the notion that they might share pathophysiological mechanisms.

Serum tau protein elevation in migraine: a cross-sectional case-control study

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a disorder associated with neuropeptide release, pain and inflammation. Tau protein has recently been linked to inflammatory diseases and can be influenced by neuropeptides such as CGRP, a key neurotransmitter in migraine. Here, we report serum concentrations of total-tau protein in migraine patients and healthy controls.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, interictal blood samples from n = 92 patients with episodic migraine (EM), n = 93 patients with chronic migraine (CM), and n = 42 healthy matched controls (HC) were studied. We assessed serum total-tau protein (t-tau) and for comparison neurofilament light chain protein (NfL), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L (UCH-L1) concentrations using the Neurology 4-plex kit, on a single molecule array HD-X Analyzer (Quanterix Corp Lexington, MA). Matched serum/cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were used for post-hoc evaluations of a central nervous system (CNS) source of relevant findings. We applied non-parametric tests to compare groups and assess correlations.

RESULTS

Serum t-tau concentrations were elevated in EM [0.320 (0.204 to 0.466) pg/mL] and CM [0.304 (0.158 to 0.406) pg/mL] patients compared to HC [0.200 (0.114 to 0.288) pg/mL] (p = 0.002 vs. EM; p = 0.025 vs. CM). EM with aura [0.291 (0.184 to 0.486 pg/mL); p = 0.013] and EM without aura [0.332 (0.234 to 0.449) pg/mL; p = 0.008] patients had higher t-tau levels than HC but did not differ between each other. Subgroup analysis of CM with/without preventive treatment revealed elevated t-tau levels compared to HC only in the non-prevention group [0.322 (0.181 to 0.463) pg/mL; p = 0.009]. T-tau was elevated in serum (p = 0.028) but not in cerebrospinal fluid (p = 0.760). In contrast to t-tau, all proteins associated with cell damage (NfL, GFAP, and UCH-L1), did not differ between groups.

DISCUSSION

Migraine is associated with t-tau elevation in serum but not in the CSF. Our clinical study identifies t-tau as a new target for migraine research.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 2: flunarizine

OBJECTIVE

Novel disease-specific and mechanism-based treatments sharing good evidence of efficacy for migraine have been recently marketed. However, reimbursement by insurers depends on treatment failure with classic anti-migraine drugs. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to identify and rate the evidence for efficacy of flunarizine, a repurposed, first- or second-line treatment for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

A systematic search in MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for trials of pharmacological treatment in migraine prophylaxis, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA). Eligible trials for meta-analysis were randomized, placebo-controlled studies comparing flunarizine with placebo. Outcomes of interest according to the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) were the proportion of patients reaching a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs), and Adverse Events (AEs) leading to discontinuation.

RESULTS

Five trials were eligible for narrative description and three for data synthesis and analysis. No studies reported the predefined outcomes, but one study assessed the 50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks with flunarizine as compared to placebo showing a benefit from flunarizine with a low or probably low risk of bias. We found that flunarizine may increase the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.02; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Published flunarizine trials predate the recommended endpoints for evaluating migraine prophylaxis drugs, hence the lack of an adequate assessment for these endpoints. Further, modern-day, large-scale studies would be valuable in re-evaluating the efficacy of flunarizine for the treatment of migraines, offering additional insights into its potential benefits.

Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine.

METHODS

We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial at 142 clinical research sites across the USA, the UK, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, and Taiwan. Adults aged 18-80 years with a 1-year or longer history of chronic migraine were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral atogepant 30 mg twice a day, oral atogepant 60 mg once a day, or placebo. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) across the 12-week treatment period. The primary analysis was done in the modified intent-to-treat population and included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention, had an evaluable baseline period of electronic diary (eDiary) data, and had at least one evaluable post-baseline 4-week period (weeks 1-4, 5-8, and 9-12) of eDiary data during the double-blind period. The safety population consisted of all participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03855137).

FINDINGS

Between March 11, 2019 and Jan 20, 2022, 1489 participants were assessed for eligibility. 711 were excluded, and 778 participants were randomly assigned to atogepant 30 mg twice a day (n=257), atogepant 60 mg once a day (n=262), or placebo (n=259). Participants in the safety population were aged 18-74 years (mean 42·1 years). 459 (59%) of 773 patients were White, 677 (88%) patients were female, and 96 (12%) were male. 84 participants discontinued treatment during the trial, and 755 comprised the modified intent-to-treat population (atogepant 30 mg twice a day n=253, atogepant 60 mg once a day n=256, and placebo n=246). Baseline mean number of MMDs were 18·6 (SE 5·1) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, 19·2 (5·3) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and 18·9 (4·8) with placebo. Change from baseline in mean MMDs across 12 weeks was -7·5 (SE 0·4) with atogepant 30 mg twice a day, -6·9 (0·4) with atogepant 60 mg once a day, and -5·1 (0·4) with placebo. Least squares mean difference from placebo was -2·4 with atogepant 30 mg twice a day (95% CI -3·5 to -1·3; adjusted p<0·0001) and -1·8 with atogepant 60 mg once a day (-2·9 to -0·8; adjusted p=0·0009). Most common adverse events for atogepant were constipation (30 mg twice a day 28 [10·9%]; 60 mg once a day 26 [10%]; and placebo 8 [3%]) and nausea (30 mg twice a day 20 [8%]; 60 mg once a day 25 [10%]; and placebo 9 [4%]). Potentially clinically significant weight decrease (≥7% reduction at any time post-baseline) was observed in each treatment group (atogepant 30 mg twice a day 14 [6%]; atogepant 60 mg once a day 15 [6%]; and placebo 5 [2%]).

INTERPRETATION

Atogepant 30 mg twice a day and 60 mg once a day showed clinically relevant reductions in MMDs across 12 weeks in chronic migraine patients. Both atogepant doses were well tolerated, consistent with the known safety profile of atogepant.

FUNDING

Allergan (now AbbVie).

Impact of headache frequency and preventive medication failure on quality of life, functioning, and costs among individuals with migraine across several European countries: need for effective preventive treatment

BACKGROUND

Data are limited regarding the combined impact of headache frequency and failure of preventive medication (efficacy and/or tolerability) on the humanistic/economic burden of migraine.

METHODS

A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2020 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted. An opt-in online survey identified adults in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants with ≥ 4 monthly headache days (MHDs) were stratified by prior preventive medication use/failure (preventive naive; 0-1 failure; ≥ 2 failures). Quality-of-life and economic outcomes were compared among groups using generalized linear modeling.

RESULTS

Among individuals with ≥ 4 MHDs (n = 1106), the NHWS identified 298 (27%) with ≥ 2 failures, 308 (28%) with 0-1 failure, and 500 (45%) as preventive naive. Individuals with ≥ 2 failures versus preventive-naive individuals had significantly lower scores on the 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary (42.2 vs 44.1; P < 0.005), numerically higher scores on the Mental Component Summary (39.5 vs 38.5; P = 0.145), significantly higher scores on the Migraine Disability Assessment (39.1 vs 34.0; P < 0.05), and significantly higher prevalence of depression symptoms (62% vs 47%; P < 0.001) and anxiety symptoms (42% vs 31%; P < 0.01). The ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group also had significantly more functional impairment as assessed by mean numbers of migraine-specific missed work days (7.8 vs 4.3) and household activities days (14.3 vs 10.6) in the past 6 months (P < 0.001) as well as the prevalence of absenteeism (19% vs 13%), overall work impairment (53% vs 42%), and activity impairment (53% vs 47%) (all P < 0.05). Emergency department visits (0.7 vs 0.5; P = 0.001) and hospitalizations (0.5 vs 0.3; P < 0.001) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥ 2 failures group versus the preventive-naive group, while indirect costs (€13,720 vs €11,282) and the proportion of individuals with non-adherence during the past 7 days (73% vs 64%) were numerically higher.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased burden, quality-of-life impairment, and functional impairment exist among individuals with migraine experiencing ≥ 4 MHDs and more treatment failures. While cause and directionality cannot be determined, these results suggest the need for effective preventive migraine treatments.

Perception of typical migraine images on the internet: Comparison between a metropolis and a smaller rural city in Germany

The medial portrayal of migraine is often stereotypical and inaccurate but reflects how society perceives migraine. The discrepancy between others' views and the reality of affected individuals may negatively affect access to treatment and the disease course of patients with migraine. This study aimed to investigate whether images presented in the media as typical migraine attacks are perceived as realistic and representative by migraine patients in Rostock, a smaller town in rural Germany, and compare the results to those from Berlin, a large metropolis. We performed an online survey in Rostock. Migraine patients were shown ten images of migraine attacks, which were among the most downloaded stock pictures on the internet under the search term "migraine". They rated on a scale of 0-100 to what extent the pictures were realistic for migraine attacks (realism score), representative of their own migraine (representation score), or the society's view of migraine (society score). In addition, we compared our results with a recently published study from the metropolitan region of Berlin. A total of 174 migraine patients completed our survey. Mean (SD) realism, representation, and society scores were 59.9 (17.5), 56.7 (18.3), and 58.4 (17.1) respectively. Images of older patients were perceived as significantly more realistic and representative than those of younger patients (P < .001). Patients in Rostock (rural region) rated the images as significantly more realistic and representative than survey participants in Berlin (metropolis). Migraine patients in a rural region found typical migraine images only moderately realistic and representative but to a higher degree than their counterparts from a metropolis.

A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies: Predicting Response

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are increasingly being used as preventive treatments for migraine. Their effectiveness and safety were established through numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials and real-world studies, yet a significant proportion of patients do not respond to this treatment, and currently, there is a lack of accepted predictors of response to guide expectations, as data from studies so far are lacking and inconsistent. We searched Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies reporting on predictors of response to CGRP and/or CGRP-receptor (CGRP-R) mAbs, defined as a 30% or 50% reduction in monthly headache or migraine days at varying durations of follow-up. Quantitative synthesis was performed where applicable. We found 38 real-world studies that investigated the association between various predictors and response rates. Based on these studies, good response to triptans and unilateral pain with or without unilateral autonomic symptoms are predictors of a good response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Conversely, obesity, interictal allodynia, the presence of daily headaches, a higher number of non-successful previous prophylactic medications, and psychiatric comorbidities including depression are predictive of a poor response to CGRP(-R) mAbs. Future studies should confirm these results and help to generate more tailored treatment strategies in patients with migraine.

Long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine and acute medication overuse: A subgroup analysis

OBJECTIVE

Assess the long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine with acute medication overuse.

BACKGROUND

Overuse of acute medication in patients with chronic migraine has been linked to greater pain intensity and disability and may diminish the effectiveness of preventive therapies.

METHODS

This 52-week open-label extension study followed a 12-week double-blind placebo-controlled study in which patients with chronic migraine were randomized 3:2:2 to placebo or once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg. Patients were stratified by region and medication overuse status. Patients received erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg throughout or switched from erenumab 70 to 140 mg (based on protocol amendment to augment safety data at higher dose). Efficacy was assessed in patients with and without medication overuse at parent study baseline.

RESULTS

Of 609 patients enrolled in the extension study, 252/609 (41.4%) met the criteria for medication overuse at parent study baseline. At Week 52, the mean change in monthly migraine days from parent study baseline was -9.3 (95% confidence interval: -10.4, -8.1 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -9.3 (-10.1, -8.5 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup (combined erenumab doses); proportion of patients achieving ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days at Week 52 was 55.9% (90/161; 48.2%, 63.3%) versus 61.3% (136/222; 54.7%, 67.4%), respectively. Among baseline users of acute migraine-specific medication, the mean change in monthly migraine-specific medication days at Week 52 was -7.4 (-8.3, -6.4 days) in the medication overuse subgroup versus -5.4 (-6.1, -4.7 days) in the non-medication overuse subgroup. Most patients (197/298; 66.1%) in the medication overuse subgroup transitioned to non-overuse status by Week 52. Erenumab 140 mg was associated with numerically greater efficacy than erenumab 70 mg across all endpoints. No new safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSION

Long-term erenumab treatment demonstrated sustained efficacy and safety in patients with chronic migraine with and without acute medication overuse.

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.

The comparative effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

While there are several trials that support the efficacy of various drugs for migraine prophylaxis against placebo, there is limited evidence addressing the comparative safety and efficacy of these drugs. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to facilitate comparison between drugs for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to August 13, 2022, for randomized trials of pharmacological treatments for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and rated the certainty (quality) of evidence as either high, moderate, low, or very low using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We identified 74 eligible trials, reporting on 32,990 patients. We found high certainty evidence that monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene related peptide or its receptor (CGRP(r)mAbs), gepants, and topiramate increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo. We found moderate certainty evidence that beta-blockers, valproate, and amitriptyline increase the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, and low certainty evidence that gabapentin may not be different from placebo. We found high certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, valproate and amitriptyline lead to substantial adverse events leading to discontinuation, moderate certainty evidence that topiramate, beta-blockers, and gabapentin increase adverse events leading to discontinuation, and moderate to high certainty evidence that (CGRP(r)mAbs) and gepants do not increase adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

(CGRP(r)mAbs) have the best safety and efficacy profile of all drugs for migraine prophylaxis, followed closely by gepants.

Sex Hormones and Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide in Women With Migraine: A Cross-sectional, Matched Cohort Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Sex hormones may modulate calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) release in the trigeminovascular system. We studied CGRP concentrations in plasma and tear fluid in female participants with episodic migraine (EM) and a regular menstrual cycle (RMC), female participants with EM and combined oral contraception (COC), and female participants with EM in the postmenopause. For control, we analyzed 3 corresponding groups of age-matched female participants without EM.

METHODS

Participants with an RMC had 2 visits: during menstruation on menstrual cycle day 2 ± 2 and in the periovulatory period on day 13 ± 2. Participants with COC were examined at day 4 ± 2 of the hormone-free interval (HFI) and between days 7 and 14 of hormone intake (HI). Postmenopausal participants were assessed once at a random time point. Plasma and tear fluid samples were collected at each visit for determination of CGRP levels with an ELISA.

RESULTS

A total of 180 female participants (n = 30 per group) completed the study. Participants with migraine and an RMC showed statistically significantly higher CGRP concentrations in plasma and tear fluid during menstruation compared with female participants without migraine (plasma: 5.95 pg/mL [IQR 4.37-10.44] vs 4.61 pg/mL [IQR 2.83-6.92], p = 0.020 [Mann-Whitney U test]; tear fluid: 1.20 ng/mL [IQR 0.36-2.52] vs 0.4 ng/mL [IQR 0.14-1.22], p = 0.005 [Mann-Whitney U test]). In contrast, female participants with COC and in the postmenopause had similar CGRP levels in the migraine and the control groups. In migraine participants with an RMC, tear fluid but not plasma CGRP concentrations during menstruation were statistically significantly higher compared with migraine participants under COC (p = 0.015 vs HFI and p = 0.029 vs HI, Mann-Whitney U test).

DISCUSSION

Different sex hormone profiles may influence CGRP concentrations in people, with current or past capacity to menstruate, with migraine. Measurement of CGRP in tear fluid was feasible and warrants further investigation.

European Headache Federation (EHF) critical re-appraisal and meta-analysis of oral drugs in migraine prevention-part 1: amitriptyline

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper is to critically re-appraise the published trials assessing amitriptyline for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

We report our methods and results following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials of pharmacologic treatments for migraine prophylaxis. We included randomized trials that compared amitriptyline with placebo for migraine prophylaxis in adults. Our outcomes of interest were informed by the Outcome Set for preventive intervention trials in chronic and episodic migraine (COSMIG) and include the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in migraine days per month, migraine days per month, and adverse events leading to discontinuation. We assessed risk of bias by using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence by using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 10.826 unique records, of which three trials (n = 622) were eligible for data synthesis and analysis. We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who experience a 50% or more reduction in monthly migraine days, compared to placebo (relative risk: 1.60 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.19); absolute risk difference: 165 more per 1,000 (95% CI 47 more to 327 more). We found moderate certainty evidence that amitriptyline increases the proportion of patients who discontinue due to adverse events compared to placebo (risk difference: 0.05 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.10); absolute risk difference: 50 more per 1,000 (95% CI 10 more to 100 more).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that amitriptyline may have a prophylactic role in migraine patients, however these results are far from robust. This warrants further large-scale research to evaluate the role of amitriptyline in migraine prevention.

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.

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.

Change of CGRP Plasma Concentrations in Migraine after Discontinuation of CGRP-(Receptor) Monoclonal Antibodies

Discontinuation of treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway leads to an increase in migraine frequency. We aimed to assess changes in free and total CGRP plasma concentrations after the discontinuation of CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. This prospective analysis included 59 patients with migraine (n = 25 erenumab, n = 25 galcanezumab, n = 9 fremanezumab) who discontinued mAbs after ≥8 months of treatment. Patients were visited at the time of the last mAb injection (V1) and 16 weeks later (V2). For control, 30 migraine patients without preventive drug therapy were included. We measured free CGRP plasma concentrations in the erenumab and fremanezumab group and total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group. Free CGRP plasma concentrations did not change after treatment discontinuation [erenumab: V1 31.2 pg/mL (IQR 25.8−45.6), V2 30.3 pg/mL (IQR 22.9−47.6), p = 0.65; fremanezumab V1 29.4 pg/mL (IQR 16.4−61.9), V2 34.4 (19.2−62.0), p = 0.86]. Controls had similar CGRP values of 32.6 pg/mL (IQR 21.3−44.6). Total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group were 5439.3 pg/mL (2412.7−6338.1) at V1, and decreased to 1853.2 pg/mL (1136.5−3297.0) at V2 (p < 0.001). Cessation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs did not have an impact on the free-circulating CGRP concentrations. Total CGRP decreased significantly after three months of treatment discontinuation.

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.

Once-daily oral atogepant for the long-term preventive treatment of migraine: Findings from a multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of once-daily oral atogepant 60 mg in adults with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Atogepant is an oral, small-molecule, calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.

METHODS

A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial of adults (18-80 years) with migraine. Lead-in trial completers or newly enrolled participants with 4-14 migraine days/month were enrolled and randomized (5:2) to atogepant 60 mg once daily or oral standard care (SC) migraine preventive medication. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of atogepant; safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory evaluations, vital signs, and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores. Efficacy assessments (atogepant only) included change from baseline in mean monthly migraine days (MMDs) and the proportion of participants with reductions from baseline of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% in MMDs.

RESULTS

The trial included 744 participants randomized to atogepant 60 mg (n = 546) or SC (n = 198). The atogepant safety population was 88.2% female (n = 479/543) with a mean (standard deviation) age of 42.5 (12.0) years. TEAEs occurred in 67.0% (n = 364/543) of participants treated with atogepant 60 mg. The most commonly reported TEAEs (≥5%) were upper respiratory tract infection (10.3%; 56/543), constipation (7.2%; 39/543), nausea (6.3%; 34/543), and urinary tract infection (5.2%; 28/543). Serious TEAEs were reported in 4.4% (24/543) for atogepant. Mean (standard error) change in MMDs for atogepant was -3.8 (0.1) for weeks 1-4 and -5.2 (0.2) at weeks 49-52. Similarly, the proportion of participants with ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reductions in MMDs increased from 60.4% (310/513), 37.2% (191/513), and 20.7% (106/513) at weeks 1-4 to 84.2% (282/335), 69.9% (234/335), and 48.4% (162/335), at weeks 49-52.

CONCLUSION

Daily use of oral atogepant 60 mg for preventive treatment of migraine during this 1-year, open-label trial was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious.

Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study

OBJECTIVE

HER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication.

METHODS

Post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50-100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p < 0.001). In the last 3 months, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving erenumab (60.3%) achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (43.3%; p < 0.001). Patients receiving erenumab demonstrated significantly greater reductions in MMD during the last 3 months from baseline versus those receiving topiramate (- 6.13 vs - 4.90; 95% CI: - 1.87 to - 0.61; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated significantly superior efficacy of erenumab versus topiramate in achieving a ≥50% reduction in MMD with an early onset of efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539 .

European Headache Federation (EHF) consensus on the definition of effective treatment of a migraine attack and of triptan failure

Background

Triptans are migraine-specific acute treatments. A well-accepted definition of triptan failure is needed in clinical practice and for research. The primary aim of the present Consensus was to provide a definition of triptan failure. To develop this definition, we deemed necessary to develop as first a consensus definition of effective treatment of an acute migraine attack and of triptan-responder.

Main body

The Consensus process included a preliminary literature review, a Delphi round and a subsequent open discussion. According to the Consensus Panel, effective treatment of a migraine attack is to be defined on patient well-being featured by a) improvement of headache, b) relief of non-pain symptoms and c) absence of adverse events. An attack is considered effectively treated if patient’s well-being, as defined above, is restored within 2 hours and for at least 24 hours. An individual with migraine is considered as triptan-responder when the given triptan leads to effective acute attack treatment in at least three out of four migraine attacks. On the other hand, an individual with migraine is considered triptan non-responder in the presence of failure of a single triptan (not matching the definition of triptan-responder). The Consensus Panel defined an individual with migraine as triptan-resistant in the presence of failure of at least 2 triptans; triptan refractory, in the presence of failure to at least 3 triptans, including subcutaneous formulation; triptan ineligibile in the presence of an acknowledged contraindication to triptan use, as specified in the summary of product characteristics.

Conclusions

The novel definitions can be useful in clinical practice for the assessment of acute attack treatments patients with migraine. They may be helpful in identifying people not responding to triptans and in need for novel acute migraine treatments. The definitions will also be of help in standardizing research on migraine acute care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01502-z.

Study Design and Protocol of a Randomized Controlled Trial of the Efficacy of a Smartphone-Based Therapy of Migraine (SMARTGEM)

Background

Digitalization and electronic health (eHealth) offer new treatment approaches for patients with migraine. Current smartphone applications (apps) for migraine patients include a wide spectrum of functions ranging from digital headache diaries to app-based headache treatment by, among others, analysis of the possible triggers, behavioral therapy approaches and prophylactic non-drug treatment methods with relaxation therapy or endurance sport. Additional possibilities arise through the use of modern, location-independent communication methods, such as online consultations. However, there is currently insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and/or risks of these electronic tools for patients. To date, only few randomized controlled trials have assessed eHealth applications.

Methods

SMARTGEM is a randomized controlled trial assessing whether the provision of a new digital integrated form of care consisting of the migraine app M-sense in combination with a communication platform (with online consultations and medically moderated patient forum) leads to a reduction in headache frequency in migraine patients, improving quality of life, reducing medical costs and work absenteeism (DRKS-ID: DRKS00016328).

Discussion

SMARTGEM constitutes a new integrated approach for migraine treatment, which aims to offer an effective, location-independent, time-saving and cost-saving treatment. The design of the study is an example of how to gather high quality evidence in eHealth. Results are expected to provide insightful information on the efficacy of the use of electronic health technology in improving the quality of life in patients suffering from migraine and reducing resource consumption.

Advances in pharmacotherapy for the prophylactic treatment of resistant and refractory migraine

INTRODUCTION

Refractory migraine is associated with low quality of life and great socioeconomic burden. Despite high need for effective, tolerable preventive therapies, there has been little research on potential therapeutic options. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) are the first preventive therapeutic approach for migraine based on the underlying pathophysiology.

AREAS COVERED

Following a brief introduction into the term 'refractory migraine,' the authors reviewavailable treatment options, focusing on current phase III trials of substances acting on the CGRP pathway.

EXPERT OPINION

No uniform definition for refractory migraine is available. The vast majority of proposals recommend treatment failure of 2-4 drug classes as a key diagnostic criterion. Phase III studies on CGRP-(receptor) mAbs demonstrated excellent efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic and episodic migraine including subjects with multiple unsuccessful conventional therapy attempts. However, more comparator trials showing superiority of mAbs versus oral preventatives, such as the HER-MEs study are needed. In summary, with the CGRP antibodies, a group of drugs has entered the market which will most likely not only significantly improve the quality of life of many individual migraine patients but could also reduce indirect health-care costs associated with migraine by reducing recurrent medical consultations.

European Headache Federation guideline on the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway for migraine prevention - 2022 update

Background

A previous European Headache Federation (EHF) guideline addressed the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway to prevent migraine. Since then, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence have expanded the evidence and knowledge for those treatments. Therefore, the EHF panel decided to provide an updated guideline on the use of those treatments.

Methods

The guideline was developed following the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed a systematic review and an analysis of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Where the GRADE approach was not applicable, expert opinion was provided.

Results

We found moderate to high quality of evidence to recommend eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in individuals with episodic and chronic migraine. For several important clinical questions, we found not enough evidence to provide evidence-based recommendations and guidance relied on experts’ opinion. Nevertheless, we provided updated suggestions regarding the long-term management of those treatments and their place with respect to the other migraine preventatives.

Conclusion

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway are recommended for migraine prevention as they are effective and safe also in the long-term.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01431-x.

Long‐term efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with chronic migraine in whom prior preventive treatments had failed: A subgroup analysis

Objective

To assess the long‐term efficacy and safety of erenumab in the subgroup of patients with chronic migraine (CM) in whom prior preventive treatments had failed (TF) (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) and never failed (preventive naïve or prior preventive treatments had not failed), using the data from a 52‐week, open‐label treatment period (OLTP) of the parent study.

Background

Erenumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to and inhibits the canonical calcitonin gene‐related peptide receptor. There are limited long‐term data evaluating the efficacy and safety of erenumab in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed.

Methods

Patients who had completed the 12‐week double‐blind treatment period (DBTP) in the parent study were eligible to participate in the 52‐week OLTP, during which they received erenumab every 4 weeks. The TF subgroups (≥1, ≥2, and ≥3 TF medication categories) were not mutually exclusive; patients in whom prior preventive treatments from ≥3 medication categories had failed were also counted in the ≥2 and ≥1 medication categories. Endpoints included monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly acute migraine‐specific medication days (MSMD), achievement of ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% reduction from baseline in MMD, and exposure‐adjusted patient incidence rates of adverse events (AEs; per 100 patient‐years).

Results

Erenumab treatment provided sustained mean reductions in MMD and MSMD relative to the parent study baseline throughout the 52 weeks of the OLTP across all TF subgroups. At Week 52, the mean MMD change was −8.6 (SD 6.6) (baseline: 18.4 [SD 4.5] days) in the ≥1 TF subgroup. A post hoc completer analysis (52 weeks [OLTP] erenumab) showed that compared with erenumab 70 mg, the 140 mg dose was associated with numerically greater reductions in the mean MMD (Week 40: −8.6 and −7.2 days; Week 52: −9.7 and −7.9 days [≥1 TF subgroup]) and a higher proportion of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response thresholds across all subgroups at Weeks 40 and 52. Overall the exposure‐adjusted patient incidence rates of AEs did not increase during the OLTP versus the DBTP (≥1 TF subgroup: 141.9/100 versus 317.9/100 patient‐years), and no new safety signals occurred.

Conclusion

The long‐term treatment with erenumab was well tolerated and showed sustained efficacy in patients with CM in whom prior preventive treatments had failed, with numerically greater treatment effects for 140 mg versus 70 mg.

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.

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

Background

Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption.

Methods

Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period.

Results

This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life.

Conclusions

Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

Comparing the relative and absolute effect of erenumab: is a 50% response enough? Results from the ESTEEMen study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies acting on the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have changed migraine preventive treatment. Those treatments have led to reconsidering the outcomes of migraine prevention. Available data mostly considered benefits in terms of relative efficacy (percent or absolute decrease in monthly migraine days [MMDs] or headache days compared with baseline). However, not enough attention has been paid to residual MMDs and/or migraine-related disability in treated patients. In the present study, we aimed at comparing the relative and absolute efficacy of erenumab.

Methods

ESTEEMen was a collaborative project among 16 European headache centers which already performed real-life data collections on patients treated with erenumab for at least 12 weeks. For the present study, we performed a subgroup analysis on patients with complete data on MMDs at baseline and at weeks 9-12 of treatment. Starting from efficacy thresholds proposed by previous literature, we classified patients into 0-29%, 30-49%, 50-74%, and ≥75% responders according to MMD decrease from baseline to weeks 9-12 of treatment. For each response category, we reported the median MMDs and Headache Impact test-6 (HIT-6) scores at baseline and at weeks 9-12. We categorized the number of residual MMDs at weeks 9-12 as follows: 0-3, 4-7, 8-14, ≥15. We classified HIT-6 score into four categories: ≤49, 50-55, 56-59, and ≥60. To keep in line with the original scope of the ESTEEMen study, calculations were performed in men and women.

Results

Out of 1215 patients, at weeks 9-12, 381 (31.4%) had a 0-29% response, 186 (15.3%) a 30-49% response, 396 (32.6%) a 50-74% response, and 252 (20.7%) a ≥75% response; 246 patients (20.2%) had 0-3 residual MMDs, 443 (36.5%) had 4-7 MMDs, 299 (24.6%) had 8-14 MMDs, and 227 (18.7%) had ≥15 MMDs. Among patients with 50-74% response, 246 (62.1%) had 4-7 and 94 (23.7%) 8-14 residual MMDs, while among patients with ≥75% response 187 (74.2%) had 0-3 and 65 (25.8%) had 4-7 residual MMDs.

Conclusions

The present study shows that even patients with good relative response to erenumab may have a clinically non-negligible residual migraine burden. Relative measures of efficacy cannot be enough to thoroughly consider the efficacy of migraine prevention.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01408-w.

Two-year efficacy and safety of erenumab in participants with episodic migraine and 2-4 prior preventive treatment failures: results from the LIBERTY study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate individual and group long-term efficacy and safety of erenumab in individuals with episodic migraine (EM) for whom 2-4 prior preventatives had failed.

METHODS

Participants completing the 12-week double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of the LIBERTY study could continue into an open-label extension phase (OLEP) receiving erenumab 140 mg monthly for up to 3 years. Main outcomes assessed at week 112 were: ≥50%, ≥75% and 100% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) as group responder rate and individual responder rates, MMD change from baseline, safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Overall 240/246 (97.6%) entered the OLEP (118 continuing erenumab, 122 switching from placebo). In total 181/240 (75.4%) reached 112 weeks, 24.6% discontinued, mainly due to lack of efficacy (44.0%), participant decision (37.0%) and adverse events (AEs; 12.0%). The ≥50% responder rate was 57.2% (99/173) at 112 weeks. Of ≥50% responders at the end of the DBTP, 36/52 (69.2%) remained responders at ≥50% and 22/52 (42.3%) at >80% of visits. Of the non-responders at the end of the DBTP, 60/185 (32.4%) converted to ≥50% responders in at least half the visits and 24/185 (13.0%) converted to ≥50% responders in >80% of visits. Change from baseline at 112 weeks in mean (SD) MMD was -4.2 (5.0) days. Common AEs (≥10%) were nasopharyngitis, influenza and back pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy was sustained over 112 weeks in individuals with difficult-to-treat EM for whom 2-4 prior migraine preventives had failed. Erenumab treatment was safe and well tolerated, in-line with previous studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03096834.

Gender Differences in 3-Month Outcomes of Erenumab Treatment-Study on Efficacy and Safety of Treatment With Erenumab in Men

Objective: We reported gender-specific data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody antagonizing the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor.

Methods: Our pooled patient-level analysis of real-world data included patients treated with erenumab and followed up for 12 weeks. We considered the following outcomes at weeks 9–12 of treatment compared with baseline: 0–29%, 30–49%, 50–75%, and ≥75% responder rates, according to the decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs), rate of treatment stopping, change in MHDs, monthly migraine days (MMDs), monthly days of acute medication and triptan use, and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score from baseline to weeks 9–12. Outcomes were compared between men and women by the chi-squared test or t-test, as appropriate. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to identify factors influencing the efficacy outcomes.

Results: We included 1,410 patients from 16 centers, of which 256 (18.2%) were men. Men were older than women and had a lower number of MHDs at baseline. At weeks 9–12, compared with baseline, 46 (18.0%) men had a ≥75% response, 75 (29.3%) had a 50–74% response, 35 (13.7%) had a 30–49% response, and 86 (33.6%) had a 0–29% response, while 14 (5.5%) stopped the treatment. The corresponding numbers for women were 220 (19.1%), 314 (27.2%), 139 (12.0%), 402 (34.8%), and 79 (6.8%). No gender difference was found in any of the outcomes. The ANCOVA showed that gender did not influence the efficacy of outcomes.

Conclusion: We found that erenumab is equally safe and effective in men compared with women after 12 weeks.

Timing and durability of response to erenumab in patients with episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate temporal response patterns to erenumab treatment in patients with episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Although many patients treated with erenumab experience onset of efficacy as early as 1 week, clinical benefits of migraine preventive therapies may accrue with continued treatment. Furthermore, details about the maintenance of clinical responses have not been reported.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study of erenumab for the prevention of episodic migraine. We analyzed temporal responses to erenumab using a threshold of ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs).

RESULTS

During the 6-month treatment period, 73.7% (230/312) and 79.6% (253/318) of patients in the erenumab 70 mg (n = 312) and 140 mg (n = 318) groups, respectively, achieved a response in at least 1 month. In this group of responders, at least half reached first monthly response (first month with ≥50% reduction from baseline in MMDs) by month 2 and at least 75% of them by month 3. The remainder responded in months 4-6. Of patients in the erenumab 70 and 140 mg groups, 35.3% (110/312) and 41.8% (133/318), respectively, responded over months 1-3 (mean response over first 3 months). Of these patients, 81.8% (90/110) and 81.9% (109/133) maintained this response over months 4-6 (mean response over last 3 months) in the 70 and 140 mg groups, respectively. Many patients who did not achieve an initial response (≥50% reduction from baseline in MMDs during month 1) responded later with continued treatment, with approximately one-half or more of initial nonresponders responding by months 4-6.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support guidelines recommending at least 3 months following the initiation of erenumab for migraine prevention before the assessment of response.

Patients' and Health Care Workers' Perception of Migraine Images on the Internet: Cross-sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

The representation of migraine in the media is stereotypical. Standard images of migraine attacks display stylish young women holding their head in a pain pose. This representation may contribute to the social stigmatization of patients with migraine.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to analyze how patients with migraine and health care workers perceive online images of migraine.

METHODS

The study consisted of an anonymous web-based survey of patients with migraine at the Headache Center of Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (migraine group) and employees and students at our university (health care group). A total of 10 frequently used Adobe Stock photos of migraine attacks were presented to the participants. Each photo was rated on a scale of 0% to 100% based on how closely it resembled a realistic migraine attack (realism score). Patients with migraine also indicated how much each photo corresponded to their own experience of migraine as a percentage (representation score). We calculated the mean realism and representation scores for all photos and conducted further analyses using the categories male or female models, younger or older models, and unilateral or bilateral pain pose.

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients with migraine and 331 health care employees and students completed the survey. In both groups, the mean realism score was <50% (migraine group: 47.8%, SD 18.3%; health care group: 46.0%, SD 16.2%). Patients with migraine identified their own migraine experience in these photos to a lesser degree (mean representation score 44.4%, SD 19.8%; P<.001 when compared to the realism score). Patients and health care workers considered photos with male models to be more realistic than photos with females (P<.001) and photos with older models to be more realistic than those with younger people (P<.001). In the health care group only, a bilateral pain posture was deemed more realistic than a unilateral pose (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Standard images of migraine attacks are considered only slightly or moderately realistic by patients and health care workers. Some characteristics perceived as more realistic such as male sex or older age are in contrast with migraine epidemiology. A more accurate representation of migraine in the media could help to raise awareness for migraine and reduce the associated stigma.

Erenumab versus topiramate for the prevention of migraine - a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled phase 4 trial

BACKGROUND

We compared the tolerability and efficacy of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody binding to the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, to topiramate for migraine prophylaxis in adults.

METHODS

HER-MES was a 24-week, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial conducted in 82 sites in Germany. Patients with ≥4 migraine days per month and naïve to study drugs were randomly assigned (1:1) to either subcutaneous erenumab (70 or 140 mg/month) plus topiramate placebo (erenumab group) or oral topiramate at the individual dose with optimal efficacy (50-100 mg/day) plus erenumab placebo (topiramate group).The primary endpoint was medication discontinuation due to an adverse event during the double-blind phase. The proportion of patients that achieved ≥50% reduction from baseline in monthly migraine days during the last 3 months of the double-blind phase was a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and seventy-seven patients were randomised (from 22 February 2019 to 29 July, 2020) and 95.1% completed the study. In the erenumab group, 10.6% discontinued medication due to adverse events compared to 38.9% in the topiramate group (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.27; p < 0.001). Significantly more patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days from baseline with erenumab (55.4% vs. 31.2%; odds ratio 2.76; 95% confidence interval 2.06-3.71; p < 0.001). No new safety signals occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab demonstrated a favourable tolerability and efficacy profile compared to topiramate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03828539.

Galcanezumab in Patients with Multiple Previous Migraine Preventive Medication Category Failures: Results from the Open-Label Period of the CONQUER Trial

INTRODUCTION

Results from the open-label extension of the phase 3b CONQUER trial are presented to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, for up to 6 months in patients with multiple prior migraine preventive treatment failures.

METHODS

Patients were 18-75 years old with episodic or chronic migraine and 2-4 standard-of-care migraine preventive medication category failures. After 3 months of randomized treatment with galcanezumab (120 mg/month with 240 mg loading dose; n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), patients entered a 3-month open-label extension (120 mg/month galcanezumab with a blinded 240 mg loading dose for previous-placebo patients). Primary efficacy measure was mean change from double-blind baseline in monthly migraine headache days.

RESULTS

A total of 432/449 patients (96%) who entered open-label treatment completed the study. Mean change in monthly migraine headache days in the total population, which was - 1.3 for placebo and - 4.4 for galcanezumab patients at the end of double-blind treatment (p < 0.001), was - 5.2 and - 5.6, respectively, at the end of open-label treatment with galcanezumab. Among patients with episodic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 0.6 for placebo and - 2.8 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 4.5 and - 3.8, respectively, after open-label treatment. Among patients with chronic migraine, mean change in monthly migraine headache days had been - 2.5 for placebo and - 6.6 for galcanezumab after double-blind treatment (p < 0.001) and was - 6.5 and - 8.2, respectively, after open-label treatment. Adverse events were similar to those observed during double-blind placebo treatment. Review of data in elderly patients (65-75 years of age) indicated that galcanezumab was well tolerated in this age group, with no safety issues identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was effective and safe during open-label treatment in patients who had experienced failures of previous migraine preventives.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03559257.

CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine: an efficacy and tolerability comparison with standard prophylactic drugs

BACKGROUND

Several drugs are available for the preventive treatment of both episodic and chronic migraine. The choice of which therapy to initiate first, second, or third is not straightforward and is based on multiple factors, including general efficacy, tolerability, potential for serious adverse events, comorbid conditions, and costs. Recently, a new class of migraine preventive drugs was introduced, i.e. monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor.

METHODS

The present article summarizes the evidence gathered with this new migraine preventive drug class from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials. It further puts this into perspective next to the evidence gained by the most widely used agents for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine with an emphasis on efficacy and the robustness with which this efficacy signal was obtained.

RESULTS

Although being a relatively new class of migraine preventive drugs, monoclonal antibodies blocking the CGRP pathway have an efficacy which is at least comparable if not higher than those of the currently used preventive drugs. Moreover, the robustness of this efficacy signal is substantiated by several randomized clinical trials each including large numbers of patients. In addition, because of their excellent tolerability and with long-term safety data emerging, they seem to have an unprecedented efficacy over adverse effect profile, clearly resulting in an added value for migraine prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Balancing the data presented in the current manuscript with additional data concerning long term safety on the one hand and cost issues on the other hand, can be of particular use to health policy makers to implement this new drug class in the prevention of migraine.

Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab.

METHODS

We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache.

RESULTS

The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT_1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication.

RESULTS

In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only.

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Migraine evolution after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibody prophylaxis: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines recommend stopping migraine prophylaxis with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies after 6-12 months of successful therapy. In this study, we aimed to analyze the course of migraine for four months after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies use.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included patients with migraine who received a CGRP-(receptor) antibody for ≥8 months before treatment cessation. We analyzed headache data in the four-week period prior to mAb treatment initiation (baseline), in the month before the last mAb injection, in weeks 5-8 and 13-16 after last treatment. Primary endpoint of the study was the change of monthly migraine days from the month before last treatment to weeks 13-16. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients equally distributed between prophylaxis with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab and the CGRP antibodies galcanezumab or fremanezumab participated in the study. Patients reported 8.2 ± 6.6 monthly migraine days in the month before last treatment. Monthly migraine days gradually increased to 10.3 ± 6.8 in weeks 5-8 (p = 0.001) and to 12.5 ± 6.6 in weeks 13-16 (p < 0.001) after drug cessation. Monthly migraine days in weeks 13-16 were not different from baseline values (-0.8 ± 5.4; p > 0.999). Monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use showed a similar pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

The cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies migraine prophylaxis was associated with a significant increase of migraine frequency and acute medication intake over time.

Reduction in migraine pain intensity in patients treated with erenumab: A post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized studies

BACKGROUND

Erenumab (erenumab-aooe in the US) effectively reduces monthly migraine days in episodic and chronic migraine. This traditional outcome does not capture the intensity of headache pain on days with migraine.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of two pivotal randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine examined the effect of erenumab 70 and 140 mg on migraine pain. Cumulative monthly migraine pain intensity is the sum of the peak pain intensity scores (0 = no migraine to 3 = migraine day with severe pain) on migraine days. Change from baseline in cumulative monthly migraine pain and average monthly pain intensity was assessed over months 4 to 6 for episodic migraine and month 3 for chronic migraine; change in average monthly pain intensity was assessed among monthly migraine days responders/non-responders.

RESULTS

Efficacy analysis included 946 patients for the episodic migraine study and 656 patients for the chronic migraine study. Cumulative monthly migraine pain decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo (p < 0.001, for episodic migraine and chronic migraine). In addition, monthly average migraine pain intensity decreased significantly with erenumab versus placebo for episodic migraine (p < 0.01); decreases were non-significant for chronic migraine. In comparison with placebo-treated patients, a greater proportion of erenumab-treated patients were pain intensity responders regardless of threshold used. Episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (responders) had a greater reduction in monthly average pain intensity than non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab reduced cumulative monthly migraine pain in episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients and significantly reduced monthly average migraine pain in episodic migraine, demonstrating treatment benefit beyond reduction in migraine frequency.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02066415.

Diagnosis and management of migraine in ten steps

Migraine is a disabling primary headache disorder that directly affects more than one billion people worldwide. Despite its widespread prevalence, migraine remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. To support clinical decision-making, we convened a European panel of experts to develop a ten-step approach to the diagnosis and management of migraine. Each step was established by expert consensus and supported by a review of current literature, and the Consensus Statement is endorsed by the European Headache Federation and the European Academy of Neurology. In this Consensus Statement, we introduce typical clinical features, diagnostic criteria and differential diagnoses of migraine. We then emphasize the value of patient centricity and patient education to ensure treatment adherence and satisfaction with care provision. Further, we outline best practices for acute and preventive treatment of migraine in various patient populations, including adults, children and adolescents, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and older people. In addition, we provide recommendations for evaluating treatment response and managing treatment failure. Lastly, we discuss the management of complications and comorbidities as well as the importance of planning long-term follow-up.

Reduction in acute migraine-specific and non-specific medication use in patients treated with erenumab: post-hoc analyses of episodic and chronic migraine clinical trials

Background

In patients with migraine, overuse of acute medication, including migraine-specific medication (MSM) such as triptans and ergots, can lead to adverse health outcomes, including development of medication overuse headache. Here, we examined the effect of erenumab on reducing acute medication use, in particular MSM, in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).

Methods

The current post-hoc analyses were based on data from the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of two erenumab studies, a pivotal EM (N = 955) and a pivotal CM (N = 667) trial, and their respective extensions. Patients were administered subcutaneous placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg) once monthly. Daily acute headache medication use (including MSM and non-MSM) was recorded using an electronic diary during a 4-week pretreatment baseline period until the end of the treatment period. Outcome measures included change in monthly acute headache medication days (HMD) in acute headache medication users at baseline, and changes in monthly MSM days (MSMD) in MSM users at baseline and non-MSMD in non-MSM users at baseline.

Results

In total, 60 and 78 % of patients (all acute headache medication users) with EM and CM used MSM at baseline, respectively. For acute headache medication users, the change in mean monthly acute HMD over Months 4, 5 and 6 compared with the pre-DBTP was 1.5, 2.5, and 3.0 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the EM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 0.5, 2.1 and 2.8, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7. In the acute headache medication users at baseline, the change in monthly acute HMD at Month 3 compared with pre-DBTP was 3.4, 5.5, and 6.5 for placebo, erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively for the CM study. The respective change in monthly MSMD in MSM users was 2.1, 4.5, and 5.4, and in monthly non-MSMD in non-MSM users was 5.9, 6.4, and 6.6. Reductions in MSMD versus placebo were sustained in the extension periods of both studies. Erenumab was also associated with a higher proportion of MSM users achieving ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 and 100 % reduction from baseline in monthly MSMD versus placebo in both EM and CM.

Conclusions

In both EM and CM, treatment with erenumab is associated with a significant and sustained reduction in the use of acute headache medication, in particular MSM.

Trial registrations

NCT02456740; NCT02066415; NCT02174861.

Determining the Evolution of Headache Among Regular Users of a Daily Electronic Diary via a Smartphone App: Observational Study

Background

Smartphone-based apps represent a major development in health care management. Specifically in headache care, the use of electronic headache diaries via apps has become increasingly popular. In contrast to the soaring volume of available data, scientific use of these data resources is sparse.

Objective

In this analysis, we aimed to assess changes in headache and migraine frequency, headache and migraine intensity, and use of acute medication among people who showed daily use of the headache diary as implemented in the freely available basic version of the German commercial app, M-sense.

Methods

The basic version of M-sense comprises an electronic headache diary, documentation of lifestyle factors with a possible impact on headaches, and evaluation of headache patterns. This analysis included all M-sense users who had entered data into the app on a daily basis for at least 7 months.

Results

We analyzed data from 1545 users. Mean MHD decreased from 9.42 (SD 5.81) at baseline to 6.39 (SD 5.09) after 6 months (P<.001; 95% CI 2.80-3.25). MMD, AMD, and migraine intensity were also significantly reduced. Similar results were found in 985 users with episodic migraine and in 126 users with chronic migraine.

Conclusions

Among regular users of an electronic headache diary, headache and migraine frequency, in addition to other headache characteristics, improved over time. The use of an electronic headache diary may support standard headache care.

Primary headaches during the COVID-19 lockdown in Germany: analysis of data from 2325 patients using an electronic headache diary

BACKGROUND

Lockdown measures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to lifestyle changes, which in turn may have an impact on the course of headache disorders. We aimed to assess changes in primary headache characteristics and lifestyle factors during the COVID-19 lockdown in Germany using digital documentation in the mobile application (app) M-sense.

MAIN BODY

We analyzed data of smartphone users, who entered daily data in the app in the 28-day period before lockdown (baseline) and in the first 28 days of lockdown (observation period). This analysis included the change of monthly headache days (MHD) in the observation period compared to baseline. We also assessed changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), the use of acute medication, and pain intensity. In addition, we looked into the changes in sleep duration, sleep quality, energy level, mood, stress, and activity level. Outcomes were compared using paired t-tests. The analysis included data from 2325 app users. They reported 7.01 ± SD 5.64 MHD during baseline and 6.89 ± 5.47 MHD during lockdown without significant changes (p > 0.999). MMD, headache and migraine intensity neither showed any significant changes. Days with acute medication use were reduced from 4.50 ± 3.88 in the baseline to 4.27 ± 3.81 in the observation period (p < 0.001). The app users reported reduced stress levels, longer sleep duration, reduced activity levels, along with a better mood, and an improved energy level during the first lockdown month (p ≤ 0.001). In an extension analysis of users who continued to use M-sense every day for 3 months after initiation of lockdown, we compared the baseline and the subsequent months using repeated-measures ANOVA. In these 539 users, headache frequency did not change significantly neither (6.11 ± 5.10 MHD before lockdown vs. 6.07 ± 5.17 MHD in the third lockdown month, p = 0.688 in the ANOVA). Migraine frequency, headache and migraine intensity, and acute medication use were also not different during the entire observation period.

CONCLUSION

Despite slight changes in factors that contribute to the generation of headache, COVID-19-related lockdown measures did not seem to be associated with primary headache frequency and intensity over the course of 3 months.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab: Results From 64 Weeks of the LIBERTY Study

OBJECTIVE

To report the efficacy and safety of erenumab among patients with episodic migraine (EM) who were unsuccessful on 2 to 4 preventive treatments observed at week 64 of the open-label extension phase (OLEP) of A Study Evaluating the Effectiveness of AMG 334 Injection in Preventing Migraines in Adults Having Failed Other Therapies (LIBERTY) study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03096834).

METHODS

The OLEP, evaluating monthly erenumab 140 mg for 3 years, enrolled 240 patients who completed the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP) of 12 weeks during which they received placebo or erenumab 140 mg subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks as monotherapy. Efficacy outcomes were evaluated through the initial 52 weeks of OLEP (from DBTP baseline to total 64 weeks) in the overall population, patients receiving erenumab in DBTP, and patients from the DBTP placebo arm who switched to erenumab in OLEP. Endpoints included reduction of ≥50% in monthly migraine days (MMD) from DBTP baseline and change in MMD from DBTP baseline, Headache Impact Test score, and Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary score (Physical Impairment and Everyday Activities).

RESULTS

Altogether, the week 52 visit of the OLEP was completed by 204 of 240 (85.0%) patients. Among patients continuing erenumab, the 50% responder rate increased from 29.9% at weeks 9 to 12 to 44.3% at weeks 61 to 64. The 50% responder rate in patients who initiated erenumab in the OLEP remained higher in the OLEP (50.0% at week 61-64) than during DBTP (14.2% at weeks 9-12) compared to patients in continuous erenumab arm. In the OLEP, the 50% responder rate for the overall population increased from weeks 13 to 16 until weeks 37 to 40 and then remained stable through weeks 61 to 64. Patients treated with erenumab in DBTP showed sustained effects on all efficacy outcomes; those initiating erenumab in the OLEP demonstrated continued improvement from week 13 onward. Adverse events (AEs) were reported, considering both treatment groups, by ≈80.8% (serious AEs by 6.7%), 76.3% (5.9%) in the continuing erenumab arm, and 85.2% (7.4%) in those starting erenumab in OLEP. No deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with EM who were unsuccessful on 2 to 4 prior preventive treatments, the LIBERTY study demonstrated sustained efficacy on erenumab monotherapy treatment through 64 weeks in both treatment arms. Safety of erenumab was consistent with that observed in previous clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

ClinicalTrials.govIdentifier: NCT03096834.

CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE

The current study provides Class IV evidence on data from patients with EM that erenumab is safe and provides sustained efficacy at 52 weeks.