Long-Term Effectiveness of Galcanezumab in the Prevention of Migraine: An Italian Retrospective Analysis (REALITY)

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is approved in the European Union (EU) as migraine prophylaxis in adults with at least four migraine days per month. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of galcanezumab on migraine-related burdens and its impact on the use of healthcare resources for migraine prophylaxis in an Italian setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in patients with migraine who initiated treatment with galcanezumab for migraine prevention between September 2019 and December 2020. Patient data for monthly migraine days (MMDs) and MMDs with acute medication intake were obtained by medical chart reviews. Information on patient-reported outcomes (using the Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] questionnaire and Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT-6] questionnaire) and on the use of healthcare resources were also collected. The time points of interest were 1, 3, 6, 9, 12 months after the initiation of galcanezumab, and the most recent time point available during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were enrolled in the study. Starting from month 3 after treatment initiation, more than half of the patients presented at least a 50% reduction in MMDs, and approximately one-third of non-responders at month 3 became responders at month 6. From month 3 to month 12, MMDs decreased on average by 10 days. Headache impact and disability, as well as migraine-associated health resource utilization decreased significantly during the treatment period. A positive significant association among the three dimensions of clinical burden (MMDs, MIDAS and days of acute medication intake) was also observed.

CONCLUSION

The results of this Italian real-world study confirmed that galcanezumab has a rapid onset of effect and provides a long-term response among patients over different migraine-related burdens. The use of healthcare resources was also remarkably reduced.

Evidence-based preventive treatment of migraine

The evidence base for migraine prevention in both episodic and chronic migraine is outlined. The older oral preventatives, including antidepressants, antihypertensives, serotonin antagonists, antiepileptics, and calcium channel antagonists, and newer options including onabotulinumtoxinA and the CGRP monoclonal antibodies are covered. Many of the older oral preventatives were trialed before chronic migraine was defined, and they are used in chronic migraine based on the assumption that episodic migraine and chronic migraine are on a spectrum of the same condition. First- and second-line options are given, and a multicountry perspective is considered.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of Introvision, a self-regulation method with a mindfulness-based perception technique in migraine prevention: a monocentric randomized waiting-list controlled study (IntroMig Study)

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a brain disorder with recurrent headache attacks and altered sensory processing. Introvision is a self-regulation method based on mindfulness-like perception techniques, developed at the University of Hamburg. Here, we examined the effect of Introvision in migraine prevention.

METHODS

Migraineurs with at least five headache days per month were block-randomized to the experimental group (EG) or waiting list group (WL), the latter starting Introvision training six weeks after the EG. Participants learned Introvision in six weekly on-site group sessions with video-conference support followed by three individual video-conference sessions. Headache diaries and questionnaires were obtained before Introvision training and three months after the last individual Introvision session.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients completed the study. The primary outcome, headache days of the EG after Introvision training compared to those of the WL before the training, showed no significant effect (10.6 ± 7.7, n = 22; vs. 10.9 ± 6.3, n = 29, p = 0.63; Mann-Whitney-U-Test). The secondary outcome, comparing pooled EG and WL data before and after Introvision training, revealed a significant reduction of headache days (from 11.7 ± 6.5 to 9.8 ± 7.0; p = 0.003; Wilcoxon-paired-Test) as well as of acute medication intake and Headache-Impact-Test 6 (HIT-6) scores and increased self-efficacy as quantified by increased FKMS-scores (FKMS: german short form of the Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale (HMSE)).

CONCLUSION

Although the study did not reach its primary endpoint, several secondary outcome parameters in the pooled (non-controlled) pre-post analysis showed an improvement with a decrease in monthly headache days by 1.9 days/ month. A larger randomized controlled trial has to corroborate these preliminary findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03507400, Registration date 09.03.2018.

GRADE tables elaborated by the ad hoc working group of the International Headache Society

OBJECTIVES

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tables were created using a standardized and independent assessment of the efficacy and side effects of treatments with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or the CGRP receptor for the prevention of migraine. We hope to provide support for author groups writing national or regional treatment or management guidelines for migraine prevention.

METHODS

We formulated patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) questions for the efficacy and safety of mAb against CGRP or the CGRP-receptor for the prevention of migraine attacks. We performed a systematic literature research for randomized studies with eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab and a pooled analysis was done, using RevMan 5.4 software. For dichotomous outcomes we used risk ratio, and for continuous outcomes we used the mean difference to compare and summarize the evidence between groups. The evidence across studies, for each outcome, except serious adverse events, was assessed using GRADE evidence tables. Additionally, we report the serious adverse effects in the tables of the characteristics of the studies.

RESULTS

All mAb are superior to placebo for the reduction in monthly migraine days (days in which a headache consistent with migraine occurred) in participants with episodic and chronic migraine. There are no major differences between the mAb.

CONCLUSIONS

The GRADE evidence summary tables provided will support author groups to write treatment guidelines for the prevention of migraine with mAb.

Patterns of response to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies during first 6-months of treatment in resistant migraine patients: impact on outcome

BACKGROUND

The response pattern to monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAbs) shown in migraine prevention clinical trials is not always reproducible at an individual-level.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patterns of start and consistency of the response to anti-CGRP MAbs during first six months of treatment and the association to baseline clinical characteristics METHODS: This is a prospective clinical cohort observational study. We included migraine patients treated with erenumab or galcanezumab evaluated at baseline and after three and six months (M3-M6) of treatment. The response was categorized according to reduction in monthly headache days (MHD): Sustained-response (SustainedR, ≥50% at M3 and M6); Short-Response (ShortR, M3≥50% and M6<50%), Later-Response (LaterR, M3<50% and M6≥50%); Limited-Response (LimitedR, 25-50% at M3 and M6) and No-Response (NoR, <25% at M3 and M6). Response patterns were compared at baseline and with outcome variables at M3 and M6.

RESULTS

We included 357 patients with a headache frequency of 21.0(16.0, 28.0) MHD and 84.0% (300/357) were chronic migraine. The distribution according to response pattern was: 37.0% (110/297) Sustained-Response, 16.8% (50/297) Later-Response, 10.4% (31/297) Short-Response, 22.6% (67/297) Limited-Response and 13.1% showed No-Response (39/297). Sustained-R and Later-R groups showed statistically significant anxiety and depression score reduction at M3 and M6 compared to other groups.

CONCLUSION

Initial response to anti-CGRP MAbs is not consistent in all patients. Persistence of anxiety and depression might be associated with lower response rates at month 6.

Discrete Choice Experiment to Understand Japanese Patients' and Physicians' Preferences for Preventive Treatments for Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Self-injectable calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) auto-injectors and non-CGRP oral medications are currently available for migraine prevention in Japan. This study elicited the preferences for self-injectable CGRP mAbs and non-CGRP oral medications and determined differences in the relative importance of auto-injector attributes for patients and physicians in Japan.

METHODS

Japanese adults with episodic (EM) or chronic (CM) migraine and physicians who treat migraine completed an online discrete choice experiment (DCE), asking participants to choose a hypothetical treatment they preferred between two self-injectable CGRP mAb auto-injectors and a non-CGRP oral medication. The treatments were described by seven treatment attributes, with attribute levels varying between questions. DCE data were analyzed using a random-constant logit model to estimate relative attribution importance (RAI) scores and predicted choice probabilities (PCP) of CGRP mAb profiles.

RESULTS

A total of 601 patients (79.2% with EM, 60.1% female, mean age: 40.3 years) and 219 physicians (mean length of practice: 18.3 years) completed the DCE. About half (50.5%) of patients favored CGRP mAb auto-injectors, while others were skeptical of (20.2%) or averse (29.3%) to them. Patients most valued needle removal (RAI = 33.8%), shorter injection duration (RAI = 32.1%), and auto-injector base shape and need for skin pinching (RAI = 23.2%). Most physicians (87.8%) favored auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications. Physicians most valued less-frequent dosing RAI = 32.7%), shorter injection duration (30.4%), and longer storage outside the fridge (RAI = 20.3%). A profile comparable to galcanezumab showed a higher likelihood of being chosen by patients (PCP = 42.8%) than profiles comparable to erenumab (PCP = 28.4%) and fremanezumab (PCP = 28.8%). The PCPs of the three profiles were similar among physicians.

CONCLUSION

Many patients and physicians preferred CGRP mAb auto-injectors over non-CGRP oral medications and preferred a treatment profile similar to galcanezumab. Our results may encourage physicians in Japan to consider patient preferences when recommending migraine preventive treatments.

Unmet Needs in Preventive Treatment of Migraine

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

Health State Utility Mapping of Rimegepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: Double-Blind Treatment Phase and Open Label Extension (BHV3000-305)

INTRODUCTION

The objectives of this study were to (1) report long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes among patients using rimegepant preventatively in BHV3000-305 (NCT03732638) open-label extension (OLE) and (2) map Migraine-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2) to EQ-5D-3L utility values over the double-blind treatment (DBT; 0-12 weeks) and the OLE (13-64 weeks) to assess the influence of treatment on these values.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis using data from a rimegepant study for the prevention of migraine (BHV3000-305). Adult patients with migraine took either rimegepant 75 mg or placebo every other day (EOD) during the DBT phase. All patients received rimegepant during the OLE. MSQv2 was measured at baseline, weeks 12, 24, and 64. A validated algorithm was used to map MSQv2 scores to EQ-5D utilities.

RESULTS

Baseline data were available for 347 patients treated with placebo and 348 treated with rimegepant in the DBT period, who continued to the OLE. Baseline EQ-5D utilities were similar between trial arms: 0.598 for placebo and 0.614 for rimegepant. EQ-5D improved from baseline to week 12 and utilities increased by + 0.09 for placebo and + 0.10 for rimegepant (p value = 0.011). By 24 weeks, at which point patients who were originally randomized to placebo had received rimegepant 75 mg EOD for 12 weeks, HRQoL measures (MSQv2 and EQ-5D) were similar across groups, demonstrating rapid onset of treatment effect. This HRQoL improvement was durable out to 64 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo, treatment with rimegepant 75 mg was associated with greater improvement in EQ-5D utilities during the 12-week DBT phase. Patients originally randomized to placebo experienced a similar improvement in EQ-5D utilities after switching to rimegepant during the OLE, demonstrating that benefits are realized within 12 weeks of active treatment. This preventive effect was durable out to 64 weeks and was associated with an additional increase in HRQoL over time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03732638.

Exploring the neurobiology of the premonitory phase of migraine preclinically - a role for hypothalamic kappa opioid receptors?

Background

The migraine premonitory phase is characterized in part by increased thirst, urination and yawning. Imaging studies show that the hypothalamus is activated in the premonitory phase. Stress is a well know migraine initiation factor which was demonstrated to engage dynorphin/kappa opioid receptors (KOR) signaling in several brain regions, including the hypothalamus. This study proposes the exploration of the possible link between hypothalamic KOR and migraine premonitory symptoms in rodent models.

Methods

Rats were treated systemically with the KOR agonist U-69,593 followed by yawning and urination monitoring. Apomorphine, a dopamine D1/2 agonist, was used as a positive control for yawning behaviors. Urination and water consumption following systemic administration of U-69,593 was also assessed. To examine if KOR activation specifically in the hypothalamus can promote premonitory symptoms, AAV8-hSyn-DIO-hM4Di (Gi-DREADD)-mCherry viral vector was microinjected into the right arcuate nucleus (ARC) of female and male KOR^CRE or KOR^WT mice. Four weeks after the injection, clozapine N-oxide (CNO) was administered systemically followed by the assessment of urination, water consumption and tactile sensory response.

Results

Systemic administration of U-69,593 increased urination but did not produce yawning in rats. Systemic KOR agonist also increased urination in mice as well as water consumption. Cell specific Gi-DREADD activation (i.e., inhibition through Gi-coupled signaling) of KOR^CRE neurons in the ARC also increased water consumption and the total volume of urine in mice but did not affect tactile sensory responses.

Conclusion

Our studies in rodents identified the KOR in a hypothalamic region as a mechanism that promotes behaviors consistent with clinically-observed premonitory symptoms of migraine, including increased thirst and urination but not yawning. Importantly, these behaviors occurred in the absence of pain responses, consistent with the emergence of the premonitory phase before the headache phase. Early intervention for preventive treatment even before the headache phase may be achievable by targeting the hypothalamic KOR.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01497-7.

Drug Safety in Episodic Migraine Management in Adults. Part 2: Preventive Treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to aid in decision-making when choosing safe and effective options for preventive migraine medications.

RECENT FINDINGS

In Part 2, we have compiled clinically relevant safety considerations for commonly used migraine prophylactic treatments. Preventive treatment of episodic migraine includes nonspecific and migraine-specific drugs. While medications from several pharmacological classes-such as anticonvulsants, beta-blockers, and antidepressants-have an established efficacy in migraine prevention, they are associated with a number of side effects. The safety of migraine-specific treatments such as anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants are also discussed. This review highlights safety concerns of commonly used migraine prophylactic agents and offers suggestions on how to mitigate those risks.

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation at dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for migraine prevention: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as a migraine prevention by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as preventive migraine treatment remains debatable.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and BioMed Central databases were searched from their inception until December 2020. Randomised trials comparing high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex with sham for migraine prevention were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. Headache days, pain intensity, acute medication intake, and disability were extracted as study outcomes and the mean difference with a random-effects model was used to determine the effect size.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis revealed that high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex significantly reduced acute medication intake (Mean Difference = 9.78, p = 0.02, 95%CI: 1.60, 17.96, p = 0.02) and functional disability (Mean Difference = 8.00, p < 0.05, 95%CI: 4.21, 11.79). However, no differences were found in headache days and pain intensity reduction, although there was a slight trend favouring high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.

CONCLUSION

High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over dorsolateral prefrontal cortex may be effective in reducing acute medication intake and disability. However, more studies are needed to strengthen this preliminary evidence.

The impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in resistant migraine patients: a real-world evidence observational study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency and headache-related impact response to monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in a clinical sample of refractory migraine patients.

METHODS

We included migraine patients with ≥ 8 headache days/month that had failed at least three preventive medications. Demographic, medical and migraine history were collected. Patients completed an electronic headache diary including headache days/month, migraine days/month, headache pain intensity (0-3 numerical scale), use of analgesics and completed Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires at baseline and after 12 weeks. Patients were classified into ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% responders according to the improvement in frequency.

RESULTS

We included 155 patients (109 erenumab and 46 galcanezumab). After 12 weeks, headache frequency decreased - 9.1 headache days/month and - 8.5 migraine days/month from baseline. A 39.5% had a ≥ 50% headache days/month reduction and a 51.6% ≥ 50% migraine days/month reduction. In the ≥ 50% migraine days/month-responders group, frequency reduction was - 13,9 migraine days/month from baseline and showed clear improvements for all patient-reported outcomes. A 14.2% and 26.5% had a ≥ 75% response in headache and migraine days/month, respectively, and 11.0% showed a 100% migraine days/month reduction. Patients who were not on other preventive medications had less severe disability and higher ratio of migraine over headache days/month were more likely of being a ≥ 50% migraine days/month-responder. We did not record any severe adverse events, being the most common constipation (20.0%), fatigue (7.1%) and a transient increase in blood pressure (5.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world clinical practice, monoclonal antibodies against CGRP proved to be effective treatments in resistant migraine patients.

Onset, Maintenance, and Cessation of Effect of Galcanezumab for Prevention of Migraine: A Narrative Review of Three Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

Introduction

Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene-related peptide, is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. It is self-administered once monthly as a subcutaneous injection. This paper describes the time course of effect of galcanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

Methods

Data were based on three double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies. Patients (1773 episodic and 1113 chronic) were randomized (2:1:1) to monthly doses of placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg with a 240 mg loading dose, or galcanezumab 240 mg (January 2016–March 2017). Onset of effect was determined using a sequential analysis approach based on earliest time point at which galcanezumab achieved and subsequently maintained statistical superiority to placebo. Maintenance of effect was a comparison of the percentages of galcanezumab- and placebo-treated patients with maintenance of at least 50% response at the individual patient level. Cessation of effect was determined during a 4-month post-treatment period on the basis of change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days.

Results

Galcanezumab led to a lower percentage of patients who had a migraine headache on the first day after injection, provided maintenance of effect throughout the duration of the double-blind treatment period, and gradually lost effect without signs of rebound headache throughout the post-treatment period in most patients with episodic and chronic migraine.

Conclusion

Galcanezumab is a novel preventive therapeutic option for adult patients with migraine that has early onset of action, maintenance of effect, and gradual reduction of effect upon treatment cessation.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02614183 (EVOLVE-1); NCT02614196 (EVOLVE-2); NCT02614261 (REGAIN).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01632-x.

Immunogenicity of biologic therapies for migraine: a review of current evidence

Background

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have been shown to be effective in migraine prevention. Eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumb have shown efficacy in clinical trials along with favorable safety and tolerability profiles. Although erenumab is a human mAb and the others have been humanized to varying degrees, they all have the capacity to provoke immune reactions. The present review article aims to discuss the current relationship between mAbs targeting the CGRP pathway (CGRP mAbs) and immunogenicity and their potential clinical implications.

Findings

The incidence of patients developing anti-drug antibodies (ADAs), their titer, and clinical significance are highly variable and depend on a variety of different drug and patient factors. Neutralizing ADAs (NAbs) bind to and inhibit or reduce the pharmacologic activity of the biologic drug molecule, whereas non-neutralizing antibodies (Non-NAbs) bind to the biologic drug molecule without affecting pharmacologic activity in an in vitro test, although pharmacokinetics and drug clearance may be affected. A direct comparison of immunogenicity data across clinical trials with different biologics is not possible due to a lack of standardized assays. Several phase 2, phase 3, and long-term studies evaluating CGRP mAbs for migraine prevention have reported immunogenicity data (5 studies each for eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab). Across these studies, prevalence of ADAs varied, ranging from < 1% to ~ 18%. Neutralizing ADAs were slightly less common, with a prevalence ranging from 0 to 12%. Adverse events related to ADA formation were rare.

Conclusions

As more CGRP mAb studies are conducted and more long-term follow-up data become available, evidence is increasing that immunogenicity rates of biologic therapies for migraine are low, and adverse events related to ADAs are rare. Taken together, these results add to the growing body of evidence for the safety and tolerability of this class of migraine medications.

Conversion from chronic to episodic migraine in patients treated with erenumab: real-life data from an Italian region

BACKGROUND

Most patients treated with erenumab in clinical practice have chronic migraine (CM). We assessed the rate and possible predictors of conversion from CM to episodic migraine (EM) in a real-life study.

MAIN BODY

We performed a subgroup analysis of patients treated with erenumab from January 2019 to February 2020 in the Abruzzo region, central Italy. Treatment was provided according to current clinical practice. For the purpose of the present study, we included patients fulfilling the definition of CM for the three months preceding erenumab treatment and with at least 6 months of follow-up after treatment. We assessed the rate of conversion to EM from baseline to Months 4-6 of treatment and during each month of treatment. To test the clinical validity of conversion to EM, we also assessed the decrease in monthly headache days (MHDs), acute medication days, and median headache intensity on a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We included in our study 91 patients with CM. At Months 4-6, 62 patients (68.1%) converted from CM to EM; the proportion of converters increased from Month 1 to Month 5. In the overall group of patients, median MHDs decreased from 26.5 (IQR 20-30) to 7.5 (IQR 5-16; P < 0.001) compared with baseline, while median acute medication days decreased from 21 (IQR 16-30) to 6 (IQR 3-10; P < 0.001) and median NRS scores decreased from 8 (IQR 7-9) to 6 (IQR 4-7; P < 0.001). Significant decreases were found both in converters and in non-converters. We found no significant predictors of conversion to EM among the patients' baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, two thirds of patients with CM converted to EM during 6 months of treatment with erenumab. MHDs, acute medication use, and headache intensity decreased regardless of conversion from CM to EM.

Efficacy and safety of erenumab in women with a history of menstrual migraine

BACKGROUND

We performed a post hoc, subgroup analysis of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of erenumab for prevention of episodic migraine (STRIVE) to determine the efficacy and safety of erenumab in women with self-reported menstrual migraine.

METHODS

Patients received placebo, erenumab 70 mg, or erenumab 140 mg subcutaneously once monthly during the 6-month double-blind treatment phase of STRIVE. Women who reported history of menstrual migraine and who were ≤ 50 years old were included in the analysis. Endpoints were change from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days (MSMD; among patients who took acute migraine-specific medications at baseline), proportion of patients achieving ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMD, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 814 women enrolled in STRIVE, 232 (28.5%) reported a history of menstrual migraine and were ≤ 50 years old. Of the 232 patients, 214 (92%) had a baseline MMD > 5, suggesting a high proportion of women with attacks outside of the 5-day perimenstrual window (2 days before and 3 days after the start of menstruation). Information on "migraine days" includes (and does not discriminate between) perimenstrual and intermenstrual migraine attacks. Between-group differences from placebo over months 4-6 for erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg were - 1.8 (P = 0.001) and - 2.1 (P < 0.001) days for MMD and - 1.6 (P = 0.002) and - 2.4 (P < 0.001) days for acute MSMD, respectively. The odds of having a ≥ 50% reduction from baseline in MMD over months 4-6 were 2.2 (P = 0.024) and 2.8 (P = 0.002) times greater for erenumab 70 mg and 140 mg, respectively, than for placebo. Erenumab had an overall safety profile comparable to placebo.

CONCLUSION

Data from this subgroup analysis of women with menstrual migraine are consistent with data from the overall STRIVE episodic migraine population, supporting the efficacy and safety of erenumab in women who experience menstrual migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02456740. Registered 28 May 2015.

Monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP transmission: An update on their added value in migraine prevention

The avenue of effective migraine therapies blocking calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) transmission is the successful outcome of 35 years of translational research. Developed after short-acting, the small antagonists of the CGRP receptor (the "gepants"), the monoclonal antibodies blocking CGRP or its receptor (CGRP/rec mAbs) have changed the paradigm in migraine treatment. Contrary to the classical acute medications like triptans or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with a transient effect, they act for long durations exclusively in the peripheral portion of the trigeminovascular system and can thus be assimilated to a durable attack treatment, unlike the classical preventives that chiefly act upstream on the central facets of migraine pathophysiology. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab have included collectively several thousands of patients, making them the most extensively studied class of preventive migraine treatments. Their results clearly indicate that CGRP/rec mAbs are significantly superior to placebo and have been comprehensively reviewed by Dodick [Cephalalgia 2019;39(3):445-458]. In this review we will briefly summarize the placebo-subtracted outcomes and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) of these pivotal RCTs and analyze new and post-hoc studies published afterwards focusing on effect size, effect onset and sustainability, response in subgroups of patients, safety and tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. We will also summarize our limited real-world experience with one of the CGRP/rec mAbs. Although methodological differences and lack of direct comparative trials preclude any reliable comparison, the overall impression is that there are only minor differences in efficacy and tolerability profiles between the four monoclonals: the average placebo-subtracted 50% responder rates for reduction in migraine headaches are 21.4% in episodic migraine (NNTs: 4-5), 17.4% in chronic migraine (NNTs: 4-8). Patients with an improvement exceeding 50% are rare, chronic migraineurs with continuous headache are unlikely to be responders and migraine auras are not improved. The effect starts within the first week after administration and is quasi maximal at one month. It is sustained for long time periods and may last for several months after treatment termination. CGRP/rec mAbs are effective even after prior preventive treatment failures and in patients with medication overuse, but the effect size might be smaller. They significantly reduce disability and health care resource utilization. The adverse effect profile of CGRP/rec mAbs is close to that of placebo with few minor exceptions and despite concerns related to the safeguarding role of CGRP in ischemia, no treatment-related vascular adverse events have been reported to date. Putting the CGRP/rec mAbs in perspective with available preventive migraine drug treatments, their major advantage seems not to be chiefly their superior efficacy but their unprecedented efficacy over adverse event ratio. Regarding cost-effectiveness, preliminary pharmaco-economic analyses of erenumab suggest that it is cost-effective for chronic migraine compared to no treatment or to onabotulinumtoxinA, but likely not for episodic migraine unless attack frequency is high, indirect costs are considered and its price is lowered.

Migraine start, course and features over the cycle of combined hormonal contraceptive users with menstrual migraine - temporal relation to bleeding and hormone withdrawal: a prospective diary-based study

Background

Many studies have described the features of menstrually-related migraines (MRM) in the natural cycle and the efficacy of prevention. MRM in combined hormonal contraceptive (CHC) users has scarcely been researched. Estrogen and progestin withdrawal in CHC users are both more abrupt and from higher hormone levels compared with the natural cycle. An advantage for prevention of MRM in CHC users is that the hormone withdrawal is predictable. It is unknown, whether the attacks during the hormone-free interval are associated with the hormone withdrawal or onset of bleeding. Improved understanding of this relation might contribute to better define and shorten the time interval for prevention.

Methods

For this prospective diary-based trial we collected migraine and bleeding data from CHC users with MRM in at least two of three cycles. We analyzed frequency of migraines over the whole CHC cycle. During the hormone-free phase the relation between onset of migraine and onset of bleeding was studied. We compared pain intensity and identified prolonged-migraine attacks during hormone use and the hormone-free phase.

Results

During the hormone-free interval the number of migraine days and the pain score/migraine day were significantly higher in comparison with the mean during hormone use. The prevalence of migraine attacks was fourfold on hormone-free days 3–6. Migraine typically started on days 1–4. Migraine in relation to bleeding mostly occurred on days − 1 to + 4. In 78% of the cycles the first migraine day occurred during bleeding days 1 ± 2 and 48% started on days − 1 and day 1. The predictability of the first bleeding day was very high.

Conclusion

The day of hormone-withdrawal migraine and the first bleeding day are highly predictable in CHC users. Migraine onset is mostly day − 1 and 1 of the bleeding and on days 1–4 of the hormone-free interval. Migraine attacks of CHC users in the hormone-free interval are severe and long lasting. Further trials are necessary to investigate if this knowledge can be used to optimise prevention.

Effect of age on pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab treatment in adult patients with migraine: results from six phase 2 and phase 3 randomized clinical trials

Background

Migraine clinical profile may change with age, making it necessary to verify that migraine treatments are equally safe and effective in older patients. These analyses evaluated the effects of patient age on the pharmacokinetics (PK), efficacy, and safety of galcanezumab for prevention of migraine.

Methods

Analyses included efficacy data from three double-blind phase 3 clinical trials: two 6-month studies in episodic migraine (EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2: N = 1773) and one 3-month study in chronic migraine (REGAIN:N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, or galcanezumab 240 mg. Safety and PK data included additional phase 2 and phase 3 trials for a larger sample size of patients > 60 years (range = 18–65 for all studies). Subgroup analyses assessed efficacy measures, adverse event (AE) occurrence, and cardiovascular measurement changes by patient age group. Galcanezumab PK were evaluated using a population analysis approach, where age was examined as a potential covariate on apparent clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution (V/F) of galcanezumab.

Results

Numbers of baseline monthly migraine headache days were similar across age groups. There were no statistically significant treatment-by-age group interactions for any efficacy measures, except in episodic migraine studies where older patients appeared to have a larger reduction than younger patients in the number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use. Age (18–65) had a minimal effect on CL/F, and no effect on V/F. Galcanezumab-treated patients ≥60 years experienced no clinically meaningful increases in blood pressure and no increased frequency in treatment-emergent AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs) overall, or cardiovascular SAEs, compared to age-matched placebo-treated patients.

Conclusions

Age (up to 65 years) does not affect efficacy in migraine prevention and has no clinically meaningful influence on galcanezumab PK to warrant dose adjustment. Furthermore, older galcanezumab-treated patients experienced no increases in frequency of AEs or increases in blood pressure compared with age-matched placebo-treated patients.

Trial registrations

EVOLVE-1 (NCT02614183, registered 23 November 2015), EVOLVE-2 (NCT02614196, 23 November 2015), REGAIN (NCT02614261, 23 November 2015), ART-01 (NCT01625988, 20 June 2012, ), I5Q-MC-CGAB (NCT02163993, 12 June 2014, ), I5Q-MC-CGAJ (NCT02614287, 23 November 2015, ), all retrospectively registered.

Efficacy and Safety of Galcanezumab for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a debilitating neurologic disease. People who experience migraine can have substantial disability, impaired functioning and a decreased quality of life (QoL). Expert recommendations suggest that people with frequent migraine attacks or severe impairment related to attacks may benefit from preventive treatment. Despite these recommendations and the existence of evidence-based guidelines for the use of preventive medication, many people who are candidates for preventive therapies do not receive them. Thus, there is still a substantial unmet need for preventive migraine treatment. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in the pathophysiology of migraine. Galcanezumab-gnlm (galcanezumab) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents binding to its receptor. It is administered as a once-monthly subcutaneous injection. The aim of this review is to present a comprehensive overview of the existing short- and long-term efficacy and safety data for galcanezumab in patients with migraine. Data from the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled EVOLVE-1, EVOLVE-2 and REGAIN studies show that galcanezumab treatment for 3 or 6 months results in overall reduction in mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with episodic (EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2) and chronic (REGAIN) migraine. Greater proportions of patients with episodic migraine receiving galcanezumab versus placebo demonstrated a ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response to therapy and reported a lower level of disability and an improvement in functioning and QoL. Similarly, when compared with placebo, greater proportions of patients with chronic migraine treated with galcanezumab demonstrated a ≥ 50% and ≥ 75% response and reported improved functioning. A 12-month open-label study demonstrated the continued efficacy of galcanezumab for up to 12 months. In all studies galcanezumab was well tolerated. In conclusion, data from pivotal studies show that galcanezumab may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of patients with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Migraine is a significant contributor to the global burden of disease. Migraine symptoms can lead to substantial disability and can significantly impact an individual’s ability to perform everyday tasks and their overall quality of life. While individuals with infrequent migraine attacks might have success with acute treatments alone, those with more frequent attacks or who have severe migraine-related impairment may require preventive treatment. Although recommendations on the use of preventive treatment exist, only about one-third of individuals who qualify for preventive therapy actually receive it, resulting in a substantial unmet need. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a demonstrated role in migraine. Galcanezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds to the CGRP ligand and prevents receptor binding. In clinical trials of patients with ≥ 4 migraine headache days per month, treatment with galcanezumab was associated with a reduction in the average number of migraine headache days per month. The majority of galcanezumab groups had greater responder rates compared with the placebo groups, and levels of disability and daily functioning were generally improved. Galcanezumab was well tolerated, with the most common adverse events being injection site reactions. The results from the clinical trials of galcanezumab suggest that this drug may fulfill an unmet need in the treatment of individuals with migraine who require preventive therapy.

Prevention of migraine with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor: Addition to the S1 guideline: Therapy of migraine attacks and prevention of migraine. Recommendations of the Germany Society of Neurology and the German Migraine and Headache Society

Monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor (Erenumab) or against CGRP (Eptinezumab, Fremanezumab, Galcanezumab) are new substances for the preventive treatment of migraine. They represent an extension of the therapeutic options, which already exist in migraine prevention. In randomized, placebo-controlled studies, the efficacy and good tolerability of these specific substances have been demonstrated in patients with episodic and chronic migraine. The following treatment recommendation presents a summary of the pivotal studies. Recommendations are provided for the targeted selection of patients as well as for the evaluation of therapeutic success and the duration of treatment. Finally, possible restrictions on the use of this new substance group are discussed.

This guideline is an abridged and translated version of the guideline published by Diener H-C, May A et al., Prevention of migraine with monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or the CGRP receptor, Supplement to S1 Guideline Therapy of Migraine Attack and Prevention of Migraine, 2019, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (eds.), Guidelines for Diagnostics and Therapy in Neurology. A complete version of this guideline can be found on the website of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (www.dgn.org/leitlinien) and the AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlicher Medizinischer Gesellschaften).

This guideline has been approved by the German Neurological Society (DGN) and the German Migraine and Headache Society (GMHS) and was reviewed by the two societies.

Real-life data on the efficacy and safety of erenumab in the Abruzzo region, central Italy

Background

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibiting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRPr), for the prevention of migraine in a real-life setting.

Main body

We included in our observational study all patients with episodic or chronic migraine treated with erenumab during the year 2019 in the Abruzzo region, central Italy, and with a 6-month follow-up. We included 89 patients; 76 (85.4%) received 6 doses of erenumab, 11 (12.4%) autonomously withdrew the drug due to perceived inefficacy, and 2 (2.2%) due to adverse events. Seventy-eight patients (87.6%) were female, with a mean age of 46.8 ± 11.2 years; 84 (94.4%) had chronic migraine, and 64 (71.9%) medication overuse. All patients had ≥2 prior preventive treatment failures. Fifty-three patients (69.7%) had a 50% decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) within the first three doses; 46 (71.9%) of 64 patients withdrew medication overuse. In the 76 patients who completed a 6-dose treatment, erenumab decreased median MMDs from 19 (interquartile range [IQR] 12–27.5) to 4 (IQR 2–9.5; P < 0.001), median monthly days of analgesic use from 10 (IQR 4.5–20) to 2 IQR 0–5; P < 0.001), and median monthly days of triptan use from 5 (IQR 0–15.5) to 1 (IQR 0–4; P < 0.001). We recorded 27 adverse events in 20 (22.5%) patients, the most common being constipation (13.5%). One adverse event, i.e. allergic reaction, led to treatment discontinuation in one patient.

Conclusions

Our real-life data confirm the efficacy and tolerability of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with a high prevalence of chronic migraine and medication overuse.

The appropriate dosing of erenumab for migraine prevention after multiple preventive treatment failures: a critical appraisal

Background

Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was approved for the prevention of episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) at the monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg. We reviewed the available literature to understand if patients with prior preventive treatment failures benefit more from the 140 mg dose than the 70 mg.

Main body

We searched papers indexed in PubMed and conference abstracts published in the last 2 years which assessed the safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with prior preventive treatment failures. We reviewed the results of 3 randomized controlled trials and their subgroup analyses and open-label extensions. The 140 mg monthly dose of erenumab had a numerical advantage over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with prior preventive treatment failures, both in EM and CM (with or without medication overuse) during the double blind phases of the trials and their open-label extensions. The numerical difference between the two doses increased with the increase in the number of prior preventive treatment failures.

Conclusions

The available data suggest that erenumab 140 mg monthly might be preferred over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with EM or CM and prior preventive treatment failures. Further data are needed to assess the long-term efficacy in clinical practice of the two doses of erenumab, while their safety profile is comparable.

Physician and patient preferences for dosing options in migraine prevention

Background

Adherence to a therapy, though a key factor for successful treatment, is low among patients with chronic conditions such as migraine. Dose frequency plays a major role in adherence. This study evaluated the impact of having flexible dosing options on acceptance of and adherence to a new migraine preventive therapy class among adults with migraine.

Methods

In this observational study, two 20-min online surveys were completed: one by physicians currently treating adult patients with migraine and the other by adults with migraine. Both surveys presented the participants with three scenarios: 1) only monthly, 2) only quarterly, and 3) both dosing options of the new medication are available. Physicians estimated the proportion of their migraine patients who would receive the new medication in each scenario. Patients were asked about their dosing preference when either or both options are available. Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood of their acceptance of and adherence to the therapy.

Results

400 physicians and 417 US adults with migraine completed the surveys. The availability of both dosing options yielded a significant increase in the proportion of patients expected to receive the new medication. The overall proportion of patients favoring monthly dosing (35%) was similar to the proportion favoring quarterly dosing (40%). Among those who preferred monthly dosing (n = 147), a greater proportion indicated they are more likely to fill the prescription (77% vs 56%, P < 0.05) and remain adherent (80% vs 57%, P < 0.05) when only monthly is available versus when only quarterly is available. Similarly, among those who preferred quarterly dosing (n = 166), a greater proportion indicated they are likely to fill (63% vs 55%, P < 0.05) and remain adherent (62% vs 54%, P < 0.05) when only quarterly is available compared with when only monthly is available.

Conclusions

Physicians anticipated that the proportion of patients to receive the new medication would increase when both dosing options are available. Patients stated that they are more likely to fill the prescription and adhere to the new therapy when their preferred dosing regimen is available.

Invited Commentary on Preventive Anti-Migraine Therapy (PAMT)

Migraine is a chronic paroxysmal neurological disorder characterized by multiphase attacks of head pain and a myriad of neurological symptoms. Chronic migraine causes a great personal and societal burden. Many patients are poorly responsive to, or non-compliant with, conventional migraine preventive therapies. For this reason, physicians are constantly looking for effective migraine prevention strategies. The recent introduction of an innovative pharmacological class useful for migraine prevention, namely monoclonal antibodies towards calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptors, opens a new, immense therapeutic scenario. In this commentary, the development and efficacy of this novel class of preventive anti-migraine therapy have been discussed and compared with the conventional therapies of migraine prevention.

Efficacy and safety of exogenous ketone bodies for preventive treatment of migraine: A study protocol for a single-centred, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover trial

Background

Currently available prophylactic migraine treatment options are limited and are associated with many, often intolerable, side-effects. Various lines of research suggest that abnormalities in energy metabolism are likely to be part of migraine pathophysiology. Previously, a ketogenic diet (KD) has been reported to lead to a drastic reduction in migraine frequency. An alternative method to a strict KD is inducing a mild nutritional ketosis (0.4–2 mmol/l) with exogenous ketogenic substances. The aim of this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover, single-centre trial is to demonstrate safety and superiority of beta-hydroxybutyrate (βHB) in mineral salt form over placebo in migraine prevention.

Methods/design

Forty-five episodic migraineurs (5–14 migraine days/months), with or without aura, aged between 18 and 65 years, will be recruited at headache clinics in Switzerland, Germany and Austria and via Internet announcements. After a 4-week baseline period, patients will be randomly allocated to one of the two trial arms and receive either the βHB mineral salt or placebo for 12 weeks. This will be followed by a 4-week wash-out period, a subsequent second baseline period and, finally, another 12-week intervention with the alternative treatment. Co-medication with triptans (10 days per months) or analgesics (14 days per months) is permitted. The primary outcome is the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine days (meeting International Classification of Headache Disorders version 3 criteria) during the last 4 weeks of intervention compared to placebo. Secondary endpoints include mean changes in headache days of any severity, acute migraine medication use, migraine intensity and migraine and headache-related disability. Exploratory outcomes are (in addition to routine laboratory analysis) genetic profiling and expression analysis, oxidative and nitrosative stress, as well as serum cytokine analysis, and blood βHB and glucose analysis (pharmacokinetics).

Discussion

A crossover design was chosen as it greatly improves statistical power and participation rates, without increasing costs. To our knowledge this is the first RCT using βHB salts worldwide. If proven effective and safe, βHB might not only offer a new prophylactic treatment option for migraine patients, but might additionally pave the way for clinical trials assessing its use in related diseases.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03132233. Registered on 27 April 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3120-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Current Prophylactic Medications for Migraine and Their Potential Mechanisms of Action

A relatively high number of different medications is currently used for migraine prevention in clinical practice. Although these compounds were initially developed for other indications and differ in their mechanisms of action, some general themes can be identified from the mechanisms at play. Efficacious preventive drugs seem to either suppress excitatory nervous signaling via sodium and/or calcium receptors, facilitate GABAergic inhibition, reduce neuronal sensitization, block cortical spreading depression and/or reduce circulating levels of CGRP. We here review such mechanisms for the different compounds.