Evaluation of the change in efficacy of erenumab when used long-term for migraine prevention after initial established benefit in a Veteran population

INTRODUCTION

With increased use of erenumab and other calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists for migraine prevention, increased evidence on long-term efficacy and real-world effectiveness is needed. Some reports of a wearing-off effect or waning efficacy over time have been observed with erenumab use.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the change in efficacy of erenumab after initial established benefit for migraine prevention in a Veteran population.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review evaluated patients who were prescribed erenumab for migraine prevention at a Veterans Affairs neurology clinic between June 1, 2018 and May 31, 2021. Patients with an initial 50% or greater reduction in mean monthly headache days (MHDs) by 12 weeks after erenumab 70 mg initiation were then followed forward to determine the change in MHDs until erenumab dose was increased, changed to galcanezumab, or by November 30, 2021 to ensure a minimum 6-month follow-up for all patients.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were included for analysis. A significant reduction in mean MHDs from 16.1 to 5.7 days was found by 12 weeks after erenumab 70 mg initiation (p < 0.0001). Following this initial response to erenumab, 69% of patients experienced a significant increase in MHDs over an average time of 7.8 months and required a subsequent dose increase to erenumab 140 mg or change to galcanezumab. The remaining 31% of patients continued erenumab 70 mg monthly with a further non-statistically significant decline in MHDs.

CONCLUSIONS

A decrease in efficacy with long-term use of erenumab was observed for the majority of patients evaluated in this analysis. This suggests that patients with initial benefit on lower dose erenumab should be monitored for change to effectiveness.

Efficacy and Safety of Erenumab, Galcanezumab, and Fremanezumab in the Treatment of Drug-Resistant Chronic Migraine: Experience in Real Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Due to the recent introduction of new biologic drugs for chronic migraine, a global evaluation in real clinical practice is necessary.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety in real clinical practice of drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor (CGRPr) in patients with chronic migraine.

METHODS

Single-center, restrospective study (2019-2022), including patients with chronic migraine treated with erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab. Effectiveness variables were recorded, namely, number of migraine headache days per month (MHD), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) score, and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score, assessing changes at week 12, 24 from baseline. Toxicity was recorded following the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 criteria.

RESULTS

In all, 104 patients were included (46.2% erenumab, 41.3% galcanezumab, 12.5% fremanezumab). A reduction in MHD, MIDAS, and HIT-6 was achieved at weeks 12 and 24 with erenumab (p75% at week 24 than those intensified; P = 0.041). There was no difference in efficacy (P = 0.154) or improvement in quality of life (P = 0.783, P = 0.150), but there was greater toxicity (P < 0.001) among nonresponders with erenumab 70 mg versus erenumab 140 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

The results confirm the effectiveness and safety of anticalcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) drugs in real clinical practice. However, the study shows little benefit from erenumab intensification, with similar effectiveness and worse tolerability than the standard dose.

Response to erenumab assessed by Headache Impact Test-6 is modulated by genetic factors and arterial hypertension: An explorative cohort study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Response predictors to erenumab (ERE) in migraine patients would benefit their clinical management. We investigate associations between patients' clinical characteristics and polymorphisms at calcitonin receptor-like receptor (CALCRL) and receptor activity-modifying protein 1 (RAMP1) genes and response to ERE treatment measured as clinically meaningful improvement on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis of a prospective, multicenter, investigator-initiated study involves 110 migraine patients starting ERE 70 mg/month. Demographics, medical history, and migraine-related burden measured by HIT-6 score were collected during 3 months before and after ERE start. Selected polymorphic variants of CALCRL and RAMP1 genes were determined using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Logistic regression models identified independent predictors for response to ERE, defined as HIT-6 score improvement ≥ 8 points (HIT-6 responders [HIT-6 RESP] vs. HIT-6 nonresponders).

RESULTS

At Month 3, 58 (52.7%) patients were HIT-6 RESP. Comorbid hypertension predicted a lower probability of being HIT-6 RESP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.160, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.047-0.548, p = 0.003). Compared to major alleles, minor alleles CALCRL rs6710852G and RAMP rs6431564G conferred an increased probability of being HIT-6 RESP (for each G allele: OR = 2.82, 95% CI = 1.03-7.73, p = 0.043; OR = 2.10, 95% CI = 1.05-4.22, p = 0.037). RAMP1 rs13386048A and RAMP1 rs12465864G decreased this probability (for each rs13386048A, OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.28-0.98, p = 0.042; for each rs12465864G, OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13-0.75, p = 0.009). A genetic risk score based on the presence and number of identified risk alleles was independently associated with HIT-6 RESP (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.33-0.72, p = 0.0003), surviving Bonferroni correction.

CONCLUSIONS

Response to ERE was associated with comorbid hypertension and specific allelic variants in CALCRL and RAMP1 genes. Results require confirmation in future studies.

Both perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine days respond to anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (receptor) antibodies

BACKGROUND

Anti-CGRP (receptor) antibodies effectively reduce overall migraine attack frequency, but whether there are differences in effect between perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine days has not been investigated.

METHODS

We performed a single-arm study among women with migraine. Participants were followed with electronic E-diaries during one (pretreatment) baseline month and 6 months of treatment with either erenumab or fremanezumab. Differences in treatment effect on perimenstrual and non-perimenstrual migraine days were assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, with migraine day as dependent variable and treatment, menstrual window and an interaction-term (treatment*menstrual window) as fixed effects and patient as a random effect.

RESULTS

There was no interaction between the menstrual window and treatment effect, indicating that the reduction in migraine days under treatment was similar during the menstrual window and the remainder of the menstrual cycle (OR treatment 0.44 (0.38;0.51)).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support prophylactic use of anti-CGRP (receptor) antibodies for women with menstrual migraine as this leads to consistent reductions in number of migraine days during the entire menstrual cycle.

Evaluation of vascular risk in patients with migraine with and without aura treated with erenumab: Post hoc analysis of pooled long-term clinical trial data

OBJECTIVE

To assess cardiovascular (CV) safety of erenumab in clinical trial patients associated with degree of CV risk.

BACKGROUND

Hypertension has been considered a theoretical risk associated with the inhibition of the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine management, particularly in a patient population with pre-existing CV risk factors.

METHODS

Data pooled from four double-blind, randomized trials were used to assess blood pressure (BP) changes and CV safety in patients grouped based on 10-year risk of cardiac, cerebrovascular, and peripheral artery disease as no-risk-factors, low-risk (>0% to ≤10%), moderate-risk (>10% to ≤20%), and high-risk (>20%) categories. CV safety was assessed as ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular adverse events (ICCAE).

RESULTS

There was no apparent difference between placebo- (N = 1032) and erenumab-treatment groups (70 mg, N = 885; 140 mg, N = 504) in clinical worsening of BP category from baseline to Months 1-3 (14% [143/1032] placebo vs. 13% [114/885] and 14% [71/504] for erenumab 70 and 140 mg, respectively) regardless of baseline BP category. The adverse event (AE) profile of erenumab was similar across CV risk categories throughout the long-term analysis. Erenumab-treated patients with high and moderate 10-year CV risk (N = 107) did not experience any ICCAEs during the double-blind treatment period; there was a single ICCAE (a cerebral dural venous sinus thrombosis) observed in the low-risk erenumab group (N = 273). There were no increases in AEs during the long-term extensions of up to 5 years (N = 2499; 3482 patient-years of exposure to erenumab) with exposure-adjusted incidence rates of cardio/cerebrovascular disorder AEs of 0.4, 0.5, 0.0, and 1.1 (per 100 patient-years) for no risk factor (N = 1805), low (N = 492), moderate (N = 121), and high (N = 81) 10-year CV risk groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ischemic CV and cerebrovascular AEs were uncommon and the incidence rates were similar across the 10-year CV risk categories. This analysis helps provide more detail on the CV safety of erenumab.

An observational study on monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin-gene-related peptide and its receptor

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Based on their pharmacological target, two classes of calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been identified: antibodies against the CGRP ligand-galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab-and antibodies against the CGRP receptor (CGRP-R), erenumab. The aim of the present study was to compare anti-CGRP versus anti-CGRP-R mAbs in patients with high frequency episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

All patients on monthly treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs with an available 6 months' follow-up at January 2022 were included. Data on efficacy outcome were collected following one (T1), three (T3) and six (T6) months of treatment, and included monthly headache/migraine days, the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) scores, pain intensity, analgesics consumption and response rates (>50% headache days reduction compared to baseline).

RESULTS

In all, 152 patients were enrolled, of whom 68 were in treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs (49 galcanezumab, 19 fremanezumab) and 84 with the anti-CGRP-R (erenumab). MIDAS scores were significantly lower in the anti-CGRP group at T1 and T3 (respectively p < 0.02 and p < 0.03) as well as the number of mean migraine days at T3 (p < 0.01). At T3 and T6 outcome measures were comparable, although a significantly higher percentage of super-responders was found in the anti-CGRP group (respectively p < 0.04 and p < 0.05), with a similar overall percentage of responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study on a real-world sample confirms the beneficial effect of both anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP-R mAbs, with a more favorable outcome for anti-CGRP antibodies.

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.

Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data and pharmacokinetic data to assess wearing-off of erenumab within monthly treatment cycle

BACKGROUND

Treatment wearing-off has been reported for calcitonin gene-related peptide-pathway monoclonal antibodies, including erenumab, specifically in the last week of the monthly dosing cycle.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the consistency of erenumab effect throughout the monthly treatment cycle.

METHODS

In this post hoc analysis of four pivotal double-blind, randomized controlled studies of erenumab in episodic and chronic migraine, we assessed wearing-off based on change in weekly migraine days at week 4 versus average over weeks 1-3 in each monthly dosing cycle. Analyses were conducted at each monthly dosing cycle in all patients, in responders (≥50% reduction in weekly migraine days), and in consistent responders (response in ≥2monthly cycles).

RESULTS

There was no evidence of wearing-off in the full study populations of two global studies (N = 946 and N = 656) and two Japan studies (N = 475 and N = 261). In the full study population, mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over week 1-3 ranged from 0.15 days improvement to 0.19 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.08 days improvement to 0.20 days worsening in the erenumab groups. A subgroup of responders experienced wearing-off, but the extent of wearing-off did not differ between erenumab and placebo groups. The mean change in weekly migraine days at week 4 compared with the average over weeks 1-3 ranged from 0.34 to 0.61 days worsening in the placebo group and 0.27 to 0.78 days worsening in the erenumab groups. Few patients had persistent wearing-off in ≥2 consecutive monthly treatment cycles. For erenumab-treated responders, serum erenumab concentrations were similar among patients experiencing wearing-off and those maintaining response.

CONCLUSION

No systematic wearing-off with erenumab was identified. Further research is needed to determine if wearing-off reported for some patients in clinical practice reflects a true treatment response pattern or normal fluctuations in migraine frequency.

Longitudinal differences in iron deposition in periaqueductal gray matter and anterior cingulate cortex are associated with response to erenumab in migraine

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this longitudinal study was to determine whether brain iron accumulation, measured using magnetic resonance imaging magnetic transverse relaxation rates (T2*), is associated with response to erenumab for the treatment of migraine.

METHODS

Participants (n = 28) with migraine, diagnosed using international classification of headache disorders 3rd edition criteria, were eligible if they had six to 25 migraine days during a four-week headache diary run-in phase. Participants received two treatments with 140 mg erenumab, one immediately following the pre-treatment run-in phase and a second treatment four weeks later. T2* data were collected immediately following the pre-treatment phase, and at two weeks and eight weeks following the first erenumab treatment. Patients were classified as erenumab responders if their migraine-day frequency at five-to-eight weeks post-initial treatment was reduced by at least 50% compared to the pre-treatment run-in phase. A longitudinal Sandwich estimator approach was used to compare longitudinal group differences (responders vs non-responders) in T2* values, associated with iron accumulation. Group visit effects were calculated with a significance threshold of p = 0.005 and cluster forming threshold of 250 voxels. T2* values of 19 healthy controls were used for a reference. The average of each significant region was compared between groups and visits with Bonferroni corrections for multiple comparisons with significance defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Pre- and post-treatment longitudinal imaging data were available from 28 participants with migraine for a total of 79 quantitative T2* images. Average subject age was 42 ± 13 years (25 female, three male). Of the 28 subjects studied, 53.6% were erenumab responders. Comparing longitudinal T2* between erenumab responders vs non-responders yielded two comparisons which survived the significance threshold of p < 0.05 after correction for multiple comparisons: the difference at eight weeks between the erenumab-responders and non-responders in the periaqueductal gray (mean ± standard error; responders 43 ± 1 ms vs non-responders 32.5 ± 1 ms, p = 0.002) and the anterior cingulate cortex (mean ± standard error; responders 50 ± 1 ms vs non-responders 40 ± 1 ms, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Erenumab response is associated with higher T2* in the periaqueductal gray and anterior cingulate cortex, regions that participate in pain processing and modulation. T2* differences between erenumab responders vs non-responders, a measure of brain iron accumulation, are seen at eight weeks post-treatment. Less iron accumulation in the periaqueductal gray and anterior cingulate cortex might play a role in the therapeutic mechanisms of migraine reduction associated with erenumab.

Monoclonal antibodies for chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A real-world study

Background

Medication-overuse headache is highly prevalent in tertiary care centers. It may be a cause or consequence of the overuse of symptomatic medications for migraine attacks.

Objective

We aimed to compare the efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) added to conventional pharmacological treatments in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH).

Methods

A cross-sectional, prospective, randomized, open study with real-world comparison groups of patients was carried out. The sample consisted of 200 patients with CM and MOH, who received the same approach to withdraw overused medications, started preventative treatment, and either did or did not receive mAbs.

Results

A total of 172 patients (126 women and 46 men) were included in the study and divided into two groups: group one consisting of 58 patients (control) and group two of 114 patients who used mAbs added to conventional pharmacological agents. The mean age was 44.1 ± 13.6 years, ranging from 18 to 78 years. In the 3 months follow-up after starting the treatment, both groups presented headache frequency reduction, but those with monoclonal antibodies had a significantly higher reduction in the number of headache days and symptomatic medication intake when compared to the control (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The addition of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody to the treatment for medication overuse headaches in chronic migraineurs may result in decreasing headache frequency and symptomatic medication use when compared to conventional treatments with drugs.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data.

METHODS

We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs.

RESULTS

Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140).

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

A case report of a chronic migraine patient treated with three different anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: which parameters better represent the efficacy?

Objective

To report the efficacy of different anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) on headache frequency, intensity, and duration.

Background

Blockade of CGRP receptors or neuropeptide with anti-CGRP mAbs have been successfully used for several years for the prevention of chronic and episodic migraine. The response is usually assessed by improvement seen in the number of days with headache per month. However, clinical praxis indicates that sole reliance on the frequency of headaches might be insufficient to interpret the efficacy of these treatments.

Methods

Retrospective review of a case with a meticulous headache diary who has tried three different anti-CGRP mAbs for chronic migraine prevention.

Results

The patient has been diagnosed with chronic migraine and was first treated with erenumab, followed by fremanezumab and thereafter galcanezumab due to several reasons. In addition to significant improvement in all three parameters analyzed with anti-CGRP mAb treatment, the most important and valuable effect on the patient's quality of life was decreased duration and frequency of headaches. At present, the patient is receiving fremanezumab treatment with an excellent tolerability.

Conclusion

There is a clear need for careful follow-up and detailed daily records of headaches showing the frequency, duration, and severity for the evaluation of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment. This study shows the importance of this information in order for medical professionals to make an informed decision regarding the best course of anti-CGRP mAbs treatment in cases of side effects or lack of efficacy.

Advances in CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies as Migraine Therapy: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a potentially disabling disorder, yet it remains underdiagnosed and undertreated. The release of the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the trigemino-cerebrovascular system plays a vital role in the evolution of migraine. It enhances peripheral sensitization by mediating neurogenic inflammation and also influences central sensitization. The majority of the drug classes available for migraine prophylaxis are nonspecific and associated with numerous side effects and drug interactions. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are an innovative therapeutic class that fulfills the need for more efficacious and tolerable preventive therapy. While erenumab is a mAb to the CGRP receptor, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab bind to the CGRP molecule. They decrease the number of headache days and improve disability. Upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, constipation, pain at the site of injection, and fatigue are the associated side effects. CGRP mAbs are an excellent advancement in translational research and are a promising addition in migraine therapy. This article discusses the recent advances in the development of the CGRP mAbs.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dual therapy with Erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA: No synergistic effect in chronic migraine: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether dual therapy with erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA (BoNTA) was more effective than erenumab alone in chronic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is crucial in migraine. Erenumab binds to the canonical CGRP receptor in Aδ-fibers, and BoNTA prevents the release of CGRP from meningeal and extracranial C-fibers. It is still unknown whether dual therapy is more effective.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study in a Headache Unit. There was a thorough revision of charts of patients receiving erenumab from December 2019 to March 2021. The cohort was divided into three groups according to BoNTA at the start of erenumab: (1) WBT: were on BoNTA and maintained it as dual therapy; (2) WoBT: were on BoNTA and discontinued; (3) NoBT: were not on BoNTA. Primary endpoint was reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints were percent improvement and ≥50% reduction in MHD.

RESULTS

Of 237 charts reviewed, 187 met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-three (39%) were included in WBT, 44 (23.5%) in WoBT, and 70 (37.4%) in NoBT. The reduction in MHD was less with dual therapy [WBT 4.7 ± 7.68, WoBT 5.12 ± 7.98 (p = 0.80), NoBT 8.21 ± 7.84 p = 0.009]. The percentage of improvement was higher in the erenumab-alone group [NoBT 35%, WoBT 22.3% (p = 0.92), WBT 21.7% (p = 0.001)]. The probability of achieving a ≥ 50% reduction in MHD was lower in WBT than in WoBT (OR 0.66, p = 0.35) and in the NoBT group (OR 0.57, p = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that dual therapy is less effective than erenumab alone. However, since the design has multiple limitations, further prospective studies are required to validate these data.

Two-year effectiveness of erenumab in resistant chronic migraine: a prospective real-world analysis

Background

Controlled and real-world evidence have demonstrated the efficacy of calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (MABs) in migraine. However, data on the over-one-year sustained effectiveness of CGRP MABs in resistant chronic migraine (CM) is sparse. 

Methods

This is a two-year real-world prospective analysis of an ongoing single centre audit conducted in patients with resistant CM. Patients received monthly erenumab for six months before assessing its effectiveness. Responders were considered those who achieved at least 30% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) by month 6, compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes were also analysed, including changes of the Headache Impact Test version 6 (HIT-6).

Results

One hundred sixty-four patients [135 (82.3%) females; mean age 46 SD 14) years] were included in the audit and 160 patients analysed. Patients had failed a mean of 8.4 preventive treatments at baseline. At month 6, 76 patients (48%) were 30% responders to erenumab, 50 patients (31%) were 50% responders and 25 (15%) were 75% responders. The mean reduction in MMD at month 6 was 7.5 days compared to baseline (P < 0.001). At month 12 and month 18, 61 patients (38%) and 52 patients (33%) remained 30% responders respectively. At month 24, 36 patients (23%) remained 30% responders, 25 patients (16%) and 13 patients (8%) were respectively 50% and 75% responders. Compared to 95% of patients at baseline, at months 6, 12 and 24, 46%, 29% and 16% of responders respectively had severe disability. At least one adverse event at month 6, 12, 18 and 24 was reported by 49%, 19%, 11% and 3% of patients. By month 6, 13% of patients discontinued the treatment because of side effects, often constipation.

Conclusions

Long-term sustained effectiveness of erenumab was reported only by a minority of resistant CM patients. Although more research in resistant migraine is needed, Erenumab can provide long-term meaningful reduction in migraine load and migraine-related disability in some patients.

The use of erenumab for migraine prophylaxis during pregnancy: A case report and narrative review

OBJECTIVE

To report a case of a woman who continued erenumab for migraine prophylaxis throughout her pregnancy and to review the literature for pregnancy safety data for the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor and ligand-directed therapies currently approved for migraine prophylaxis in the United States.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common headache disorder that can be significantly disabling. Many people experiencing migraine seek out preventative therapies to improve their quality of life. Unfortunately, currently approved prophylactic agents may not be safe to use during pregnancy, potentially limiting the use of these agents in women of childbearing potential. As the newest class of prophylactic agents for migraine, CGRP agents have limited pregnancy safety data in humans.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted through the PubMed database using the terms pregnancy and either erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, eptinezumab, rimegepant, or atogepant. Additional sources of information such as prescribing information, assessment reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and manufacturer data were sought.

RESULTS

One case report was found in the literature documenting a human pregnancy with no adverse effects in the baby after exposure to erenumab. However, the last dose was administered in the second week of pregnancy and discontinued thereafter. The evaluation of 92 safety reports describing maternal exposure prior to or during pregnancy to either erenumab, galcanezumab, or fremanezumab was located. Incidence of miscarriage and congenital anomalies appear to be similar to rates in the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of erenumab during pregnancy in our patient resulted in no known harm to the child. This case is unique in that the mother continued to receive erenumab throughout the pregnancy. Safety data is lacking regarding the use of these agents during pregnancy, despite their frequent use in women of childbearing potential.

Different dosage regimens of erenumab for the treatment of migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a worldwide epidemic neurological disorder that has a significant influence on the quality of life. Migraine attacks are considered to be related to a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) signaling molecule, and anti-CGRP medications are used to abort and prevent migraine attacks. Erenumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the CGRP receptor, is the first migraine preventive medication approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. In the present study, we evaluate the efficacy and safety of erenumab.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of erenumab as a migraine preventive treatment compared to a placebo.

METHODS

Randomized, placebo-controlled, single or double-blind trials were searched through MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2022. The efficacy outcomes we collected include changes from baseline on monthly migraine days, monthly acute migraine-specific medication days, ≥50% responder rate, ≥75% responder rate, and 100% responder rate at week 12. Safety outcomes include treatment emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, and any adverse event that leads to discontinuation of treatment. The study was registered with PROSPERO (Registry number: CRD42022338861).

RESULT

In all eight included trials, we found that erenumab (28, 70, and 140 mg) is very effective and has a significantly greater reduction in baseline monthly migraine days (28 mg: mean difference [MD] = -1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.0 to -0.2, p = 0.020; 70 mg: MD = -1.4, 95% CI: -1.8 to -1.1, p < 0.001, I²  = 26%; 140 mg: MD = -1.8, 95% CI: -2.1 to -1.4, p < 0.001, I²  = 0%) than placebo at week 12, especially with 140 mg. Otherwise, we found that there were no statistical differences in the occurrence of adverse events (7 mg: risk ratio [RR] = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.2, p = 0.570; 21 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8 to 1.2, p = 0.730; 28 mg: RR = 0.9, 95% CI: 0.7 to 1.1, p = 0.340; 70 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0, p = 0.230, I²  = 0%; 140 mg: RR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.1, p = 0.880, I²  = 40%) between the erenumab and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, we found that erenumab, especially at the dose of 140 mg, is an effective and well-tolerated preventive treatment for migraine.

Machine-learning based approach to predict anti-CGRP response in patients with migraine: multicenter Spanish study

BACKGROUND

To date, several variables have been associated with anti-CGRP receptor or ligand-antibody response with disparate results. Our objective is to determine whether machine learning (ML)-based models can predict 6, 9 and 12 months response to anti-CGRP receptor or ligand therapies among migraine patients.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter analysis of a prospectively collected data cohort of patients with migraine receiving anti-CGRP therapies. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. Response rate defined in the 30% to 50% range -or at least 30%-, in the 50% to 75% range -or at least 50%-, and response rate over 75% reduction in the number of headache days per month at 6, 9 and 12 months. A sequential forward feature selector was used for variable selection and ML-based predictive models response to anti-CGRP therapies at 6, 9 and 12 months, with models' accuracy not less than 70%, were generated.

RESULTS

A total of 712 patients were included, 93% women, aged 48 years (SD=11.7). Eighty-three percent had chronic migraine. ML models using headache days/month, migraine days/month and HIT-6 variables yielded predictions with a F1 score range of 0.70-0.97 and AUC (area under the receiver operating curve) score range of 0.87-0.98. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) summary plots and dependence plots were generated to evaluate the relevance of the factors associated with the prediction of the above-mentioned response rates.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our study, ML models can predict anti-CGRP response at 6, 9 and 12 months. This study provides a predictive tool to be used in a real-world setting.

Cerebral Blood Flow and Other Predictors of Responsiveness to Erenumab and Fremanezumab in Migraine-A Real-Life Study

Introduction

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) showed efficacy in migraine prevention. The aim of this study was to check if baseline clinical parameters and cerebral blood flow (CBF) measured by transcranial Doppler (TCD) may help predict mAbs efficacy.

Methods

Electronic charts of migraineurs treated with erenumab or fremanezumab, with baseline TCD evaluations were collected, including data on migraine type, pain localization, monthly migraine days (MMD), medication overuse headache (MOH), mean blood flow velocity (Vm), and pulsatility index (PI) in cerebral arteries.

Results

A total of 123 patients were enrolled, mean age 38, 75 years, 87 with chronic migraine, 61 with MOH, 72 were good responders (GR), and reported ≥50% reduction in MMD, 43 ≥75% reduction in MMD. Baseline Vm values in MCAs were significantly lower in GR as compared with non-responders. MAbs responsiveness ≥50% was positively associated with unilateral pain localization (OR: 6.53, 95% CI: 2.01–23.93; p = 0.003) and HIT-6 score (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.01–1.30; p = 0.036) whereas negatively associated with Vm in right MCA (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.92–0.99; p = 0.012), and having no relatives with migraine (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.16–0.95; p = 0.040).

Conclusions

Baseline Vm in MCA is lower in mAbs GR as compared with non-responders which may reflect increased secretion of CGRP with further vasodilation in GR. Simple clinical features and baseline CBF in anterior circulation might help to predict the patient's responsiveness.

Treatment of migraine with monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

: In the few last years, a new family of drugs, anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), has been developed for migraine therapy. Anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective, but the current limited experience with their use and their high-cost warrant establishing certain rules of use.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides an overview of the management of migraine patients, especially those who are undergoing treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to new research focused on the pathophysiology of migraine, and the discovery that CGRP plays a key role in its etiopathogenesis, new drugs targeting CGRP have been developed. These drugs have led to a paradigm shift, anticipating new and stimulating possibilities in migraine treatment. While physicians and patients are full of expectation about the advantages of this new family of drugs, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to make the best use of them. It is essential to form multidisciplinary teams that can identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, conducting cost-effective treatments. The follow-up of these therapies in the coming years is paramount due to the lack of experience in the management of these drugs and the peculiarity of disease evolution in migraine patients.

Erenumab in chronic migraine: experience from a UK tertiary centre and comparison with other real-world evidence

Background and purpose

Chronic migraine is a highly disabling primary headache disorder that is the most common diagnosis of patients seen at tertiary headache centres. Typical oral preventive therapies are associated with many limitations that impact their therapeutic utility. Erenumab was the first available calcitonin gene‐related peptide monoclonal antibody in the UK. It had proven efficacy in migraine prevention in clinical trials and limited real‐world data in tertiary settings.

Methods

We audited our first 92 patients (n = 73 females) with severely disabling chronic migraine who were given monthly erenumab 70 mg sc for 6 months between December 2018 and December 2019.

Results

At 3 months, monthly migraine days were significantly reduced by a median of 4 days, and all other variables also showed significant improvement. The improvement was not affected by baseline analgesic use status. More than half of our patients experienced a clinically meaningful improvement in migraine days. No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Our real‐world data with erenumab demonstrate it is effective and well tolerated in managing patients with chronic migraine in a tertiary care setting.