Efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for the prevention of episodic migraine: Results of the EVOLVE-2 Phase 3 randomized controlled clinical trial

Migraine: Advances in the Pathogenesis and Treatment

This article presents a comprehensive review on migraine, a prevalent neurological disorder characterized by chronic headaches, by focusing on their pathogenesis and treatment advances. By examining molecular markers and leveraging imaging techniques, the research identifies key mechanisms and triggers in migraine pathology, thereby improving our understanding of its pathophysiology. Special emphasis is given to the role of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine development. CGRP not only contributes to symptoms but also represents a promising therapeutic target, with inhibitors showing effectiveness in migraine management. The article further explores traditional medical treatments, scrutinizing the mechanisms, benefits, and limitations of commonly prescribed medications. This provides a segue into an analysis of emerging therapeutic strategies and their potential to enhance migraine management. Finally, the paper delves into neuromodulation as an innovative treatment modality. Clinical studies indicating its effectiveness in migraine management are reviewed, and the advantages and limitations of this technique are discussed. In summary, the article aims to enhance the understanding of migraine pathogenesis and present novel therapeutic possibilities that could revolutionize patient care.

Galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine: results from the open-label period of the phase 3 PERSIST study

BACKGROUND

The phase 3 randomized PERSIST study demonstrated the efficacy and tolerability of galcanezumab, a humanized anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody for prevention of episodic migraines. We present findings from the open-label extension (OLE) of PERSIST, which evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in patients from China, India, and Russia.

METHODS

Patients completing the 3-month double-blind period of PERSIST were eligible for the 3-month OLE. Patients previously randomized to galcanezumab (GMB/GMB group) continued to receive galcanezumab 120 mg at all three visits during the OLE whereas patients randomized to placebo received a 240 mg loading dose of galcanezumab and then two 120 mg doses (PBO/GMB group). The primary outcome was the mean change (from double-blind baseline) in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs) to month 6. Other endpoints included percent reduction in monthly MHDs from double-blind baseline to month 6, functional outcomes, safety and tolerability.

RESULTS

Overall, 99% of patients completing the double-blind period entered the OLE, and 96% completed through month 6. Patients in the GMB/GMB group achieved continued improvements in efficacy, with the reduction from baseline in the mean number of monthly MHDs, and slightly increasing from 4.01 days at the end of the double-blind period to 4.62 at the end of the OLE. Of patients who were ≥ 50% responders to galcanezumab at month 3, 66% maintained this response through to month 6. Patients in the PBO/GMB group experienced a rapid reduction in the number of monthly MHDs after initiation of galcanezumab, with a mean reduction from baseline of 4.56 days by month 6. The long-term benefits of galcanezumab were also supported by improvements in other efficacy and functional endpoints. All safety findings were consistent with the known long-term safety profile of galcanezumab; no patients experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was efficacious and well-tolerated in patients with episodic migraine from China, India and Russia, for up to 6 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrisABSTRACT_pals.gov NCT03963232, registered May 24, 2019.

Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials on anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies poorly investigated their impact on migraine accompanying symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of basal accompanying symptoms on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies treatment response and their evolution after six months of treatment in migraine patients.

METHODS

Patients with migraine diagnosis seen in the Headache Clinic and treated with erenumab, galcanezumab or fremanezumab were prospectively recruited. They completed a daily eDiary which provided data on headache frequency and the following accompanying symptoms of each day: photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura. Patients were classified as responders or non-responders based on 50% or greater reduction in headache days per month at month 6 (≥50% response rate). Accompanying symptoms ratios based on headache days per month were assessed per patient at baseline and after three and six months. Comparisons for basal characteristics, basal accompanying symptoms ratios and their evolution after six months between responders and non-responders were performed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included, 44% (69/158) showed ≥50% response rate after six months. A significant reduction in headache days per month in both groups was found at month 6 (-9.4 days/month in ≥50% response rate group; p < 0.001, -2.2 days/month in <50% response rate group; p = 0.004). Additionally, significant decreases in photophobia (-19.5%, p < 0.001), phonophobia (-12.1%, p = 0.010) and aura ratios (-25.1%, p = 0.008) were found in ≥50% response rate group. No statistically significant reductions were found in nausea and dizziness in any group since their reduction was correlated with the decrease in headache days per month. Higher photophobia ratios at baseline were predictive of an increased response between months 3 and 6 (Incidence Risk Ratio = 0.928, p = 0.040).

CONCLUSIONS

The days per month with photophobia, phonophobia and aura decreased at a higher rate than headache days per month after six months in the ≥50% response group. Higher photophobia ratios were associated with higher response rates between three and six months. It could indicate an involvement of peripheral CGRP in photophobia as well as a central modulation of migraine through these treatments which mainly act on the periphery.

Molecular Mechanisms of Migraine: Nitric Oxide Synthase and Neuropeptides

Migraine is a common condition with disabling attacks that burdens people in the prime of their working lives. Despite years of research into migraine pathophysiology and therapeutics, much remains to be learned about the mechanisms at play in this complex neurovascular condition. Additionally, there remains a relative paucity of specific and targeted therapies available. Many sufferers remain underserved by currently available broad action preventive strategies, which are also complicated by poor tolerance and adverse effects. The development of preclinical migraine models in the laboratory, and the advances in human experimental migraine provocation, have led to the identification of key molecules likely involved in the molecular circuity of migraine, and have provided novel therapeutic targets. Importantly, the identification that vasoconstriction is neither necessary nor required for headache abortion has changed the landscape of migraine treatment and has broadened the therapy targets for patients with vascular risk factors or vascular disease. These targets include nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and several neuropeptides that are involved in migraine. The ability of NO donors and infusion of some of these peptides into humans to trigger typical migraine-like attacks has supported the development of targeted therapies against these molecules. Some of these, such as those targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), have already reached clinical practice and are displaying a positive outcome in migraineurs for the better by offering targeted efficacy without significant adverse effects. Others, such as those targeting pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP), are showing promise and are likely to enter phase 3 clinical trials in the near future. Understanding these nitrergic and peptidergic mechanisms in migraine and their interactions is likely to lead to further therapeutic strategies for migraine in the future.

Comparison of indirect treatment methods in migraine prevention to address differences in mode of administration

Aim: Indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) are anchored on a placebo comparator, and the placebo response may vary according to drug administration route. Migraine preventive treatment studies were used to evaluate ITCs and determine whether mode of administration influences placebo response and the overall study findings. Materials & methods: Change from baseline in monthly migraine days produced by monoclonal antibody treatments (subcutaneous, intravenous) was compared using fixed-effects Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA), network meta-regression (NMR), and unanchored simulated treatment comparison (STC). Results: NMA and NMR provide mixed, rarely differentiated results between treatments, whereas unanchored STC strongly favors eptinezumab over other preventive treatments. Conclusion: Further investigations are needed to determine which ITC best reflects the impact of mode of administration on placebo.

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

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

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group".

RESULTS

Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as "good" quality and 13 studies were graded as "fair".

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

Burden of migraine with acute medication overuse or psychiatric comorbidities and treatment with CGRP pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies: A review

Migraine is a complex and often debilitating neurological disease that affects more than 1 billion people worldwide. It is characterized by moderate-to-intense, throbbing headache attacks that are worsened by activity and is associated with nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound. Migraine, ranked the second leading cause of years lived with disability by the World Health Organization, can diminish patients' quality of life and bring significant personal and economic burden. Furthermore, migraine patients with a history of acute medication overuse (AMO) or psychiatric comorbidities, such as depression or anxiety, may experience even greater impairment and burden, and their migraine may be more difficult-to-treat. Appropriate treatment of migraine is essential to reduce this burden and improve patient outcomes, especially for those with AMO or psychiatric comorbidities. There are several available preventive treatment options for migraine, though many of these are not migraine-specific and may have limited efficacy and/or poor tolerability. The calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway plays a key role in the pathophysiology of migraine, and monoclonal antibodies that target the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed as specific preventive treatments for migraine. Four of these monoclonal antibodies have been approved for the preventive treatment of migraine after demonstrating favorable safety and efficacy profiles. These treatments offer substantial benefits for migraine patients, including those with AMO or common psychiatric comorbidities, by reducing monthly headache days and migraine days, days of acute medication use, and disability measures, as well as improving quality of life.

Gender bias in clinical trials of biological agents for migraine: A systematic review

Migraine is considered one of the most disabling diseases. Currently, there are few studies on clinical migraine treatment based on sex-related differences, despite the important role of sex in migraine. Our aim was to evaluate gender bias in published clinical trials on monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab). We performed a systematic review of controlled clinical trials of erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab and eptinezumab, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database for articles published before December 2021. The search identified 760 articles, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. Of all the patients included in these trials, 85.1% were women. Only one study had female lead authors. Two of the 25 studies included a sex-based analysis of the primary endpoint. None of the articles discussed the results separately for men and for women. The proportion of men recruited in trials is scarce and more studies are needed to guarantee the safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies used in male migraine. As observed in our study, despite the high number of women recruited, only 2 studies analysed the results separately by sex. Thus, a potential risk of gender bias was found in these clinical trials.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The temporal trend of placebo response in migraine prevention from 1990 to 2021: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis with regression

BACKGROUND

Migraine affects 1.1 billion people globally and is the second leading cause of disability worldwide. In clinical trials, treatment efficacy is evaluated by comparing the differential responses in the treatment and placebo arms. Although placebo response in preventive migraine trials has been studied, there is limited research examining temporal trends. This study evaluates the trend of placebo response over thirty years in migraine prevention trials and investigates the association of potential confounders, such as patient, treatment, and study characteristics on placebo response using meta-analysis with regression.

METHODS

We conducted literature searches from January 1990 to August 2021 in bibliographical databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE). Studies were selected according to PICOS criteria and included randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating preventive migraine treatments in adult patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine, with or without aura. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021271732). Migraine efficacy outcomes included were either continuous (e.g., monthly migraine days) or dichotomous (e.g., ≥ 50% responder rate (yes/no)). We assessed the correlation of the change in outcome from baseline in the placebo arm, with the year of publication. The relationship between placebo response and year of publication was also assessed after accounting to confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 907 studies were identified, and 83 were found eligible. For the continuous outcomes, the change from baseline in mean placebo response showed an increase over the years (rho = 0.32, p = 0.006). The multivariable regression analysis also showed an overall increase in placebo response over the years. The correlation analysis of dichotomous responses showed no significant linear trend between publication year and mean placebo response (rho = 0.08, p = 0.596). Placebo response also varied by route of administration.

CONCLUSION

Placebo response increased over the past 30 years in migraine preventive trials. This phenomenon should be considered when designing clinical trials and conducting meta-analyses.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Medication is commonly used to treat migraine. However, patients may experience adverse events or fail to respond to medication. In recent years, neuromodulation techniques have emerged as potential non-pharmacological therapy for migraine. This article focuses on a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (n-VNS) for migraine to determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of n-VNS.

Methods

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials databases up to July 15, 2022. Primary outcomes were monthly reduced migraine/headache days, and pain-free rates within 2 h. Secondary outcomes were  ≥ 50% responder rate, headache intensity, monthly acute medication reduction days, and adverse events.

Results

Meta-analysis shows that non-invasive cervical vagus nerve stimulation (n-cVNS) significantly impacted ≥50% responder rate (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.47; p = 0.02), but had no significant effect on reducing migraine days (MD, -0.46; 95% CI, -1.21 to 0.29; p = 0.23) and headache days (MD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.52 to 0.16; p = 0.11). In contrast, low-frequency non-invasive auricular vagus nerve stimulation (n-aVNS) was found to significantly reduce the number of migraine days (MD, -1.8; 95% CI, -3.34 to -0.26; p = 0.02) and headache intensity (SMD, -0.7; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.17; p = 0.009), but not the number of acute medication days per month (MD, -1.1; 95% CI, -3.84 to 1.64; p = 0.43). In addition, n-cVNS was found safe and well-tolerated in most patients.

Conclusion

These findings show that n-VNS is a promising method for migraine management.

Emerging drugs for the preventive treatment of migraine: a review of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a leading cause of years lived with disability and preventive strategies represent a mainstay to reduce health-related disability and improve quality of life of migraine patients. Until a few years ago, migraine prevention was based on drugs developed for other clinical indications and relocated in the migraine therapeutic armamentarium, characterized by unfavourable tolerability profiles. The advent of monoclonal antibodies against Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and gepants, CGRP receptor antagonists, has been a turning point in migraine prevention owing to advantageous efficacy, safety and tolerability profiles.Nevertheless, while in an ideal scenario a drug characterized by significant greater efficacy and tolerability compared to existing therapeutic strategies should be adopted as a first-line treatment, cost-effectiveness analyses available for monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway tend to limit their administration to more severe migraine phenotypes.

AREAS COVERED

The present narrative review aim to provide a critical appraisal of phase II and III CGRP-mAbs and gepants trials to analyse their use in clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway and gepants can be undoubtedly considered top-of-the-range treatments, there are still issues deserving to be addressed in the coming years as the risk of off-target effects as well as their economic sustainability based on the considerable migraine burden.

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

Migraine is an extremely disabling, common neurological disorder characterized by a complex neurobiology, involving a series of central and peripheral nervous system areas and networks. A growing increase in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology in recent years has facilitated translation of that knowledge into novel treatments, which are currently becoming available to patients in many parts of the world and are substantially changing the clinical approach to the disease. In the first part of this review, we will provide an up to date overview of migraine pathophysiology by analyzing the anatomy and function of the main regions involved in the disease, focusing on how these give rise to the plethora of symptoms characterizing the attacks and overall disease. The second part of the paper will discuss the novel therapeutic agents that have emerged for the treatment of migraine, including molecules targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (gepants and monoclonal antibodies), serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor agonists (ditans) and non-invasive neuromodulation, as well as providing a brief overview of new evidence for classic migraine treatments.

"Wearing-off" efficacy of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A new migraine prevention, CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), is injectable on a monthly or quarterly basis. In clinical practice, some patients reported that drug effectiveness does not last until the upcoming scheduled injection, a so-called "wearing-off" effect. We aimed to evaluate the wearing-off effect of the CGRP mAbs for migraine prevention in patients with different monthly migraine days.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search for studies that reported migraine frequency after CGRP monoclonal antibody administration from MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis, random-effects model was applied to assess the difference in migraine frequency between early and later weeks after medication to assess the presence of a wearing-off effect. Risk ratio was calculated to report the pooled treatment effect.

RESULTS

Four studies were entered for the analysis, comprising 2409 patients in randomized controlled trials. There was no association between CGRP mAbs and wearing-off effect in patients with galcanezumab with a pooled risk ratio of 1.29 (95% CI 0.73 to 2.28) compared to placebo group. However, there was an association between galcanezumab and wearing-off effect in patients with chronic migraine with a pooled risk ratio of 1.91 (95% CI 1.11 to 3.28) compared to placebo group.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, there was a wearing-off efficacy of galcanezumab but only in a small percentage of patients with chronic migraine in randomized controlled trials.

Evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs and gepants for the preventive treatment of migraine: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Several novel treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway have been developed for migraine. We evaluated the efficacy of these medications, including atogepant, rimegepant, erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab, for the prevention of migraine via network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central, were systematically reviewed, and all eligible phase 3 randomised controlled trials were included.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies (n = 14,584 participants) were included. Studies included episodic (n = 11) and chronic (n = 4) migraine or both (n = 4). All interventions, except for eptinzumab 30 mg, significantly reduced mean monthly migraine days compared to placebo. All medications had a higher ≥50% responder rate than placebo and results were statistically significant in those with the subcutaneous or intravenous route of administrations, but not with the oral one. All medications significantly reduced mean monthly headache days, although no data for this outcome was available for rimegepant, and mean monthly acute medication days, with no data for eptinezumab.

CONCLUSION

The results show that medications targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide were effective in preventing migraine compared to placebo. Considering limitations of single studies, different populations such as episodic and chronic migraine, and the absence of head-to-head trials, all novel treatments decreased mean monthly migraine and headache days, and showed higher 50%, 75% and 100% responder rates than placebo.Trial registration: PROSPERO registration: CRD42022310579.

Glia Signaling and Brain Microenvironment in Migraine

Migraine is a complicated neurological disorder affecting 6% of men and 18% of women worldwide. Various mechanisms, including neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, altered mitochondrial function, neurotransmitter disturbances, cortical hyperexcitability, genetic factors, and endocrine system problems, are responsible for migraine. However, these mechanisms have not completely delineated the pathophysiology behind migraine, and they should be further studied. The brain microenvironment comprises neurons, glial cells, and vascular structures with complex interactions. Disruption of the brain microenvironment is the main culprit behind various neurological disorders. Neuron-glia crosstalk contributes to hyperalgesia in migraine. In the brain, microenvironment and related peripheral regulatory circuits, microglia, astrocytes, and satellite cells are necessary for proper function. These are the most important cells that could induce migraine headaches by disturbing the balance of the neurotransmitters in the nervous system. Neuroinflammation and oxidative stress are the prominent reactions glial cells drive during migraine. Understanding the role of cellular and molecular components of the brain microenvironment on the major neurotransmitters engaged in migraine pathophysiology facilitates the development of new therapeutic approaches with higher effectiveness for migraine headaches. Investigating the role of the brain microenvironment and neuroinflammation in migraine may help decipher its pathophysiology and provide an opportunity to develop novel therapeutic approaches for its management. This review aims to discuss the neuron-glia interactions in the brain microenvironment during migraine and their potential role as a therapeutic target for the treatment of migraine.

Early and sustained efficacy of fremanezumab over 24-weeks in migraine patients with multiple preventive treatment failures: the multicenter, prospective, real-life FRIEND2 study

BACKGROUND

To verify the long-term (24-week) efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fremanezumab in real-life patients with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM: ≥ 8 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM: ≥ 15 days/month), and multiple preventive treatment failures.

METHODS

This is a prospective, cohort, real-life study at 28 headache centers on consecutive patients affected by HFEM or CM with multiple preventive treatment failures who were prescribed subcutaneous fremanezumab (225 mg monthly/675 mg quarterly) for ≥ 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) in HFEM and monthly headache days (MHDs) in CM at weeks 21-24 compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints encompassed changes in monthly analgesic medications, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responder rates, and variation in NRS, HIT-6 and MIDAS scores at the same time interval. Changes in MMDs/MHDs, monthly analgesic medications, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responder rates, and variation in NRS and HIT-6 scores at week 4 were also monitored.

RESULTS

Four hundred ten patients who had received ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab were considered for safety analysis while 148 patients treated for ≥ 24 weeks were included in the efficacy analysis. At weeks 21-24, fremanezumab significantly (p < 0.001) reduced MMDs, MHDs, monthly analgesic medications and NRS, HIT-6, and MIDAS scores in both HFEM and CM compared to baseline. The proportions of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% responders at weeks 21-24were 75.0%, 30.8%, 9.6% (HFEM), and 72.9, 44.8 and 1% (CM). A significant (p < 0.001) decrease in MMDs, MHDs, monthly analgesic medications and NRS, HIT-6, and MIDAS scores in both HFEM and CM was already present at week 4. The proportions of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% responders at week 4 were 67.6%, 32.4%, 11.8% (HFEM) and 67.3%, 40%, 1.8% (CM). CM remitted to episodic migraine and medication overuse to no-medication overuse in 83.3 and 75% of patients at week 24, and in 80 and 72.4% at week 4. Adverse events were rare (2.4%), mild and transient. No patient discontinued treatment for any reason.

CONCLUSIONS

Fremanezumab is characterized by an early and sustained efficacy in HFEM and CM patients with multiple preventive treatment failures in real-life, revealing an optimal safety and tolerability profile.

Medication adherence in patients with cluster headache and migraine: an online survey

To examine factors for adherent and non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache and migraine. Adults with cluster headache or migraine were included in this anonymous online survey using a questionnaire accessed via homepages of headache support groups. Medication adherence in preventive treatment was measured with the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-D). Factors for non-adherent behavior were examined (subjective socioeconomic status, psychological comorbidities, self-efficacy, coping, side effects, expectations of treatment, information on medical treatment, and trust in the physician/treatment concept). 200 participants (n = 58 with cluster headache, n = 142 with migraine) were included. The rate of medication adherence in preventive treatment was 32.8% for participants with cluster headache and 20.4% for migraine. The most common reasons for low adherence in participants with cluster headache were altering the prescribed medication dose (34%) or taking less than instructed (14%), which was mostly due to insufficient benefit from the medication or side effects. Positive expectations of medical treatment (p ≤ 0.05) correlated significantly with adherent behavior in cluster headache. Furthermore, the adherence-promoting factors coping and self-efficacy were more pronounced in patients with cluster headache than in those with migraine (p < 0.05). This study is the first to comprehensively investigate medication adherence and factors influencing adherent/non-adherent behavior in patients with cluster headache. Patients with cluster headache had similar adherence levels to patients with migraine, but had higher resources of adherence-promoting factors.

Galcanezumab effects on incidence of headache after occurrence of triggers, premonitory symptoms, and aura in responders, non-responders, super-responders, and super non-responders

BACKGROUND

The goal of this observational, open-label, cohort study was to determine whether prophylactic migraine treatment with galcanezumab, a peripherally acting drug, alters the incidence of premonitory symptoms, and/or occurrence of headache after exposure to triggers or aura episodes in treatment-responders (≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days [MMD]), super-responders (≥ 70%), non-responders (< 50%) and super non-responders (< 30%).

METHODS

Participants were administered electronic daily headache diaries to document migraine days and associated symptoms one month before and during the three months of treatment. Questionnaires were used to identify conscious prodromal and trigger events that were followed by headache prior to vs. after 3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

After 3 months of galcanezumab treatment, (a) the incidence of premonitory symptoms that were followed by headache decreased by 48% in the 27 responders vs. 28% in the 19 non-responders, and by 50% in the 11 super-responders vs. 12% in the 8 super non-responders; (b) the incidence of visual and sensory aura that were followed by headache was reduced in responders, non-responders, and super-responders, but not in super non-responders; (c) the number of triggers followed by headache decreased by 38% in responders vs. 13% in non-responders, and by 31% in super-responders vs. 4% in super non-responders; and (d) some premonitory symptoms (e.g., cognitive impairment, irritability, fatigue) and triggers (e.g., stress, sleeping too little, bright light, aura) were followed by headache only in super non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanistically, these findings suggest that even a mild decrease in migraine frequency is sufficient to partially reverse the excitability and responsivity of neurons involved in the generation of certain triggers and potentially premonitory symptoms of migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04271202. Registration date: February 10, 2020.

Predicting response to CGRP-monoclonal antibodies in patients with migraine in Japan: a single-centre retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRPmAbs) are a favourable option for patients with migraine who experience distressful headache disability and fail to respond to traditional preventive treatment options. However, since CGRPmAb has been available for only 2 years in Japan, the difference between good and poor responders remains unknown. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with migraine in Japan who responded well to CGRPmAb based on real-world data.

METHODS

We analysed patients who visited Keio University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, between the 12^th of August 2021 and 31^st of August 2022, and were prescribed one of three CGRPmAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, and fremanezumab) for more than 3 months. We recorded the patients' basic migraine characteristics, such as pain quality, monthly migraine days (MMD)/monthly headache days (MHD), and the number of prior treatment failures. We defined good responders as patients whose MMDs decreased by more than 50% after 3 months of treatment and other patients as poor responders. We compared the baseline migraine characteristics between the two groups and performed logistic regression analysis based on the items that showed statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

In total, 101 patients were considered eligible for the responder analysis (galcanezumab: 57 (56%), fremanezumab: 31 (31%), and erenumab: 13 (13%)). After 3 months of treatment, 55 (54%) patients achieved ≥ 50% reduction in MMDs. Comparisons between ≥ 50% responders and non-responders revealed that age was significantly higher (p = 0.003), and MHD and total prior treatment failures were significantly lower (p = 0.027, 0.040, respectively), in responders than in non-responders. Age was a positive predictive factor, and the total number of prior treatment failures and past medical history of immuno-rheumatologic diseases were negative predictive factors of CGRPmAb responsiveness in Japanese patients with migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with migraine who are older, with fewer prior treatment failures and no past history of immuno-rheumatologic disease, may respond well to CGRPmAbs.

Safety and tolerability of monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway and gepants in migraine prevention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons of the tolerability and safety of migraine preventive treatments targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway are lacking. This study aimed to compare the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and gepants in migraine prevention.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and tolerability of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, or galcanezumab) and gepants (atogepant, rimegepant) in migraine prevention was performed. Primary outcomes were treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included any adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and individual adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 19 randomized controlled trials, comprising 14,584 patients. Atogepant 120 mg (OR 2.22, 95% CI [1.26, 3.91]) and galcanezumab 240 mg (OR 1.63, 95% CI [1.33, 2.00]) showed the largest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events compared to placebo. While eptinezumab 30 mg had greater odds of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (OR 2.62, 95% CI [1.03,6.66]). No significant differences in serious adverse events were found between active treatments and placebo. Eptinezumab was associated with the lowest odds of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events compared to placebo, whereas erenumab was associated with the lowest odds of any adverse events and quarterly fremanezumab with the lowest odds of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway and gepants are a safe and well tolerated option for migraine prevention.

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.

Predictors of response to galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine: a real-world prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Despite high efficacy and tolerability, not all patients with chronic migraine benefit from anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. We aimed to identify the clinical predictors of the response to galcanezumab treatment in patients with chronic migraine from real-world data.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited patients with CM who underwent galcanezumab injections between December 2019 and February 2022. Treatment response was determined after three months of follow-up and was defined as ≥ 50% reduction in monthly headache days. The migraine characteristics, comorbidities, and other treatment responses were compared between the responder and non-responder groups.

RESULTS

Of 238 patients with CM, 153 (64.3%) showed treatment response. The responder group was younger, had lower frequency of baseline headache days, and had more accompanying symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and photophobia. Better triptan response and less depression were also observed in the responder group. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that the everyday headache (OR = 0.351, 95% CI = 0.133-0.874, p = 0.017), depression (OR = 0.439, 95% CI = 0.216-0.896, p = 0.024) and absence of accompanying symptoms (OR = 0.314, 95% CI = 0.118-0.834, p = 0.020) were significantly associated with response to galcanezumab treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Our real-world data showed the efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with CM, regardless of medication overuse. Everyday headache, presence of depression, and absence of accompanying symptoms of migraine were significant predictors of a poor response.

Changes in migraine interictal burden following treatment with galcanezumab: Results from a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate changes in interictal burden with galcanezumab versus placebo in patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM).

BACKGROUND

The disruptive effects of migraine occur both during attacks (ictal period) and between attacks (interictal period), affecting work, school, family, and social life. Migraine clinical trials typically assess ictal burden endpoints, neglecting interictal burden.

METHODS

CONQUER was a 3-month, double-blind study that randomized adult patients with EM or CM who had experienced failure of two to four standard-of-care migraine preventive medication categories to receive monthly galcanezumab (n = 232) or placebo (n = 230), followed by 3 months of open-label galcanezumab. The mean change in interictal burden, a secondary objective, was measured using the four-item Migraine Interictal Burden Scale (MIBS-4). The total score for MIBS-4 can range from zero to 12, with scores ≥5 indicating severe interictal burden. Post hoc analyses evaluated shifts in MIBS-4 severity categories and item-level improvement.

RESULTS

The MIBS-4 total score indicated severe interictal burden at baseline (mean [SD]: all patients, 5.5 [3.5]; EM, 5.0 [3.4]; CM, 6.2 [3.5]). Reductions in the MIBS-4 score were significantly greater with galcanezumab versus placebo at Month 3 (mean [SE]: all patients -1.9 [0.2] vs. -0.8 [0.2], p < 0.0001; EM, -1.8 [0.3] vs. -1.1 [0.3], p = 0.033; CM, -1.8 [0.4] vs. -0.3 [0.4], p < 0.001), with further improvement at Month 6 after all patients had received galcanezumab (mean [SE]: all patients, -2.4 [0.2] vs. -2.0 [0.2]; EM, -2.3 [0.3] vs. -2.2 [0.3]; CM, -2.1 [0.4] vs. -1.5 [0.4]). The percentage of patients with severe interictal burden decreased substantially for the galcanezumab-treated patients, from 59% (137/232) at baseline to 27% (58/217) at Month 6 (EM from 51% [70/137] to 23% [30/131]; CM from 71% [67/95] to 33% [28/86]).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the known efficacy of galcanezumab in the ictal period, these findings suggest treatment with galcanezumab results in a significant reduction in interictal burden.

Migraine Disability Improvement during Treatment with Galcanezumab in Patients with Chronic and High Frequency Episodic Migraine

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to assess the migraine outcome, in particular migraine disability, in chronic (CM) and high frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) patients in treatment with galcanezumab.

METHODS

The present study was conducted at the Headache Centre of Spedali Civili of Brescia. Patients were treated with galcanezumab 120 mg monthly. Clinical and demographical information were collected at the baseline (T0). Data about outcome, analgesics consumption and disability (MIDAS and HIT-6 scores) were collected quarterly.

RESULTS

Fifty-four consecutive patients were enrolled. Thirty-seven patients had a diagnosis of CM, 17 of HFEM. During treatment, patients reported a significant reduction in terms of mean headache/migraine days (p < 0.001), the attacks' pain intensity (p = 0.001) and monthly consumed analgesics (p < 0.001). The MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also documented a significant improvement (p < 0.001). At the baseline, all patients documented a severe degree of disability (MIDAS score ≥ 21). Following six months of treatment, only 29.2% of patients still documented a MIDAS score ≥ 21, with one third of patients documenting little or no disability. A > 50% MIDAS reduction, compared to baseline, was observed in up to 94.6% of patients, following the first three months of treatment. A similar outcome was found for HIT-6 scores. A significant positive correlation was found between headache days and MIDAS at T3 and T6 (T6 > T3), but not baseline.

DISCUSSION

Monthly prophylactic treatment with galcanezumab was found to be effective in both CM and HFEM, especially in reducing migraine burden and disability.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies for migraine

The introduction of calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies represents a step forward in preventive migraine treatment as the first agents to target the underlying pathogenesis of migraine. In trials they act more quickly, have better long-term adherence and appear to be better tolerated than other treatments. Major disadvantages are their high cost and unknown safety in pregnancy and in cardiovascular disease. To mitigate these concerns, they should be used according to guidance produced by professional bodies, with defined starting and stopping criteria. We do not yet know whether they are more effective than standard care; many patients may still be better treated by other means, in particular addressing lifestyle factors and medication-overuse headache.

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.

Alopecia as an emerging adverse event to CGRP monoclonal antibodies: Cases Series, evaluation of FAERS, and literature review

BACKGROUND

Alopecia is associated with erenumab post-marketing, but no cases have been described.

METHODS

We describe two patients that reported temporary hair loss and review the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

RESULTS

The first patient experienced alopecia within three months of starting erenumab, which did not improve with ongoing use or transition to fremanezumab. The second patient reported alopecia within two weeks of starting erenumab, which continued after transition to galcanezumab; months later, there was also recurrent hair loss within one month of starting fremanzeumab. According to FAERS (last accessed 18 August 2022), alopecia was reported most with erenumab (1158), followed by galcanezumab (554), fremanezumab (175), eptinezumab (23), rimegepant (26), ubrogepant (4), and atogepant (3).

CONCLUSION

Most events were reported in women and non-serious. The potential mechanism of alopecia with drugs targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor possibly includes disruptions in the microvascular circulation and other homeostatic mechanisms.

Revisiting Migraine: The Evolving Pathophysiology and the Expanding Management Armamentarium

Migraine affects about one billion people worldwide yearly and is one of the most common neurologic illnesses, with a high prevalence and morbidity, particularly among young adults and females. Migraine is associated with many comorbidities, including stress, sleep difficulties, and suicidal ideation. Migraine, despite its widespread occurrence, is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Because of the complicated and primarily unknown mechanisms of migraine formation, several social and biological risk factors, such as hormone imbalances, genetic and epigenetic impacts, and cardiovascular, neurological, and autoimmune illnesses, have been proposed. Through the mid-20th century diversion of the now-defunct vascular theory, the pathophysiology of migraine has developed from a historical study of the "humours" to a distinct entity as a neurological disorder. The range of therapeutic targets has broadened significantly, increasing the number of specialized clinical trials. Understanding the biology of migraine through careful research has resulted in the identification of major therapeutic classes: (i) triptans, serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, (ii) gepants, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, (iii) ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists, (iv) CGRP monoclonal antibodies, and (v) glurants, mGlu5 modulators, with further targets being explored. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the most recent literature on epidemiology and risk factors and exposes knowledge gaps.

Pharmacological evaluation of carvacrol anti-migraine potential

Migraine is a devitalizing neurovascular disorder that affects millions of people worldwide. This study was directed against the determination of the effectiveness of carvacrol against migraine. In silico results revealed that carvacrol possesses specific scoring values of - 4.4 to - 6 against selected targets. In vivo studies showed that carvacrol (25-50 mg/Kg) decreased migraine pain by reversing thermal allodynia, mechanical allodynia, number of head-scratching, and light phobicity in rats. Levels of glutathione, glutathione-s-transferase, and catalase enhanced in the cortex and trigeminal nucleus caudalis of the animal's brain tissues, i.e., cortex and trigeminal nucleus caudalis with the use of carvacrol, while a significant decrease in lipid peroxide level was seen. Histopathological evaluation showed improvement in cellular architecture and a decrease in expression of certain inflammatory markers such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, nuclear factor kappa B, interleukin-18, and prostaglandin E2 validated by enzyme-linked immune sorbent assay, immunohistochemistry, and western blot analysis. This study indicates that carvacrol exhibits binding affinities against different targets involved in migraine pathology and possesses anti-migraine action, mediated through anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant pathways.

Targeting the Brain with Single-Domain Antibodies: Greater Potential Than Stated So Far?

Treatments for central nervous system diseases with therapeutic antibodies have been increasingly investigated over the last decades, leading to some approved monoclonal antibodies for brain disease therapies. The detection of biomarkers for diagnosis purposes with non-invasive antibody-based imaging approaches has also been explored in brain cancers. However, antibodies generally display a low capability of reaching the brain, as they do not efficiently cross the blood-brain barrier. As an alternative, recent studies have focused on single-domain antibodies (sdAbs) that correspond to the antigen-binding fragment. While some reports indicate that the brain uptake of these small antibodies is still low, the number of studies reporting brain-penetrating sdAbs is increasing. In this review, we provide an overview of methods used to assess or evaluate brain penetration of sdAbs and discuss the pros and cons that could affect the identification of brain-penetrating sdAbs of therapeutic or diagnostic interest.

Photophobia and migraine outcome during treatment with galcanezumab

Background

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) plays a pivotal role in migraine physiology, not only regarding migraine pain but also associated symptoms such as photophobia. The aim of the present study was to assess monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP efficacy not only in terms of headache and migraine frequency and disability but also in reducing ictal photophobia.

Material and methods

This is a retrospective observational study, conducted at the Headache Center-ASST Spedali Civili Brescia. All patients in monthly treatment with galcanezumab with at least a 6-month follow-up in September 2022 with reported severe photophobia during migraine attacks were included. Data regarding headache frequency, analgesics consumption, and migraine disability were collected quarterly. Moreover, patients were asked the following information regarding photophobia: (1) whether they noticed an improvement in photophobia during migraine attacks since galcanezumab introduction; (2) the degree of photophobia improvement (low, moderate, and high); and (3) timing photophobia improvement.

Results

Forty-seven patients were enrolled in the present study as they met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen patients had a diagnosis of high-frequency episodic migraine and 30 of chronic migraine. From baseline to T3 and T6, a significant improvement in terms of headache days (19.2 ± 7.6 vs. 8.6 ± 6.8 vs. 7.7 ± 5.7; p < 0.0001), migraine days (10.4 ± 6.7 vs. 2.9 ± 4.3 vs. 3.6 ± 2.8; p < 0.0001), analgesics consumption (25.1 ± 28.2 vs. 7.6 ± 7.5 vs. 7.6 ± 8.1; p < 0.0001), MIDAS score (82.1 ± 48.4 vs. 21.6 ± 17.6 vs. 18.1 ± 20.5; p < 0.0001), and HIT-6 score (66.2 ± 6.2 vs. 57.2 ± 8.6 vs. 56.6 ± 7.6; p < 0.0001) was found. Thirty-two patients (68.1%) reported a significant improvement in ictal photophobia, with over half of the patients reporting it within the first month of treatment. Photophobia improvement was more frequent in patients with episodic migraine (p = 0.02) and triptans responders (p = 0.03).

Conclusions

The present study confirms previous reports regarding galcanezumab efficacy beyond migraine frequency. In particular, over 60% of patients, in our cohort, documented a significant improvement also in reducing ictal photophobia. This improvement was, in most patients, moderate to high, and within the first 6 months of treatment, regardless of the clinical response on migraine frequency.

Maintenance of response and predictive factors of 1-year GalcanezumAb treatment in real-life migraine patients in Italy: The multicenter prospective cohort GARLIT study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To evaluate the 1-year effectiveness and tolerability of galcanezumab in real life and the prognostic indicators of persistent response.

METHODS

High-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients treated with galcanezumab who completed a 1-year observation were enrolled. The primary outcomes assessed during the 12 months (V1-V12) were the change in monthly migraine days (MMDs) from baseline and the response rates ≥50% in MMDs (MMD ≥50% RR). The secondary outcomes were changes in pain intensity (numerical rating scale [NRS]) and in monthly acute medication intake (MAMI).

RESULTS

We enrolled 191 patients (77.5% CM). Twenty-three patients (12%) dropped out, two for nonserious adverse events. At least 40% of patients took add-on standard preventives from baseline to V12. At V12, MMDs were reduced by 6.0 days in HFEM and by 11.9 days in CM patients (both p < 0.00001); NRS and MAMI were also decreased in both groups (p < 0.00001). One-hundred eight (56.5%) patients presented MMD ≥50% RR for 9 cumulative months (interquartile range=8): we defined this value as the cutoff for a persistent response. Persistent responders were less likely to have a higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.007) but more frequently had a good response to triptans (p = 0.005) and MMD ≥50% RR at V1 (p < 0.0000001). Patients without a persistent response were on add-on therapy for longer periods of time (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Galcanezumab was effective and well-tolerated in the 1-year term, with most patients presenting MMD ≥50% RR for at least 9 months. Triptan response, lower BMI, and MMD ≥50% RR in the first month emerged as predictive factors for a persistent response.

Adverse Events Reported with Therapies Targeting the CGRP Pathway During the First 6 Months Post-launch: A Retrospective Analysis Using the FDA Adverse Events Reporting System

INTRODUCTION

Through 2018, three calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) had received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for migraine prevention: erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluated adverse events (AEs) spontaneously reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) safety surveillance database during the first 6 months post-approval of erenumab (May 2018 to November 2018), fremanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019), and galcanezumab (September 2018 to March 2019). Reporting rates (RR) per 1000 exposed patients were calculated from number of reported events (when product classified as "primary suspect") in each AE category and estimated number of treated patients based on de-identified prescription data (IQVIA database) and were ranked on the basis of frequency for each product.

RESULTS

RR per 1000 exposed patients for "migraine" (erenumab, 4.89; fremanezumab, 1.01; galcanezumab, 2.99), "headache" (3.32, 1.27, 3.07), and "drug ineffective" (3.68, 1.14, 1.69) were commonly reported for all three products, as were migraine-associated symptoms ("nausea": 2.94, 0.91, 1.09) and "injection-site" reactions ("pain": 2.94, 0.8, 4.9; "swelling": 0.56, 0.53, 1.25; "pruritus": 0.26, 0.63, 1.14; "erythema": 0.58, 0.71, 1.58). "Constipation" ranked second for erenumab (4.90) but did not make the top ten events for fremanezumab (0.46) or galcanezumab (0.76); cardiovascular events did not rank in the top ten AEs for any product. The frequency of serious outcomes was low, with ≤ 2% of AEs categorized as serious across the CGRP mAbs.

CONCLUSION

These results aid in supporting the safety profile of CGRP mAbs in the real-world setting and may provide clinicians and patients with additional insight when considering migraine preventive treatments.

Meta-regression to explain the placebo effects in clinical trials of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention

Background: Commonly used methods of comparison (e.g. network meta-analyses) require common comparator(s) across trials, such as placebo in placebo-controlled trials. Recent literature indicates that route of administration differences across placebo arms of clinical trials in pain disorders may contribute to differences in placebo effect.Methods: We conducted a meta-regression on placebo data from pivotal clinical trials of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention to quantify the impact of route of administration, migraine type (episodic/chronic), and number of prior treatment failures on placebo reduction in monthly migraine days (MMDs) across weeks 1-12 of treatment. A systematic literature review of Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and grey literature conducted in June 2021 identified 14 relevant, randomized placebo-controlled trials for analysis.Results: After testing models with different covariates, a meta-regression was fitted to the extracted placebo data with the covariates of route of administration, migraine type, and proportion of patients with ≥2 prior preventive treatment failures. An intravenous route of administration for the placebo arm was a predictor for higher MMD reduction. Predictors of lower MMD reduction were migraine type (episodic migraine) and a higher proportion of patients having ≥2 failed preventive treatments.Conclusions: The efficacy of intravenous anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are likely underestimated, and differences in the route of administration of placebo may necessitate use of alternative methods that do not assume the presence of a common comparator when comparing anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in migraine prevention. Further research into the contextual effects of the placebo effect is warranted.

Annual indirect costs savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine: a post-hoc analysis of phase 3 galcanezumab clinical trials in the United States

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab (GMB) improved quality-of-life and reduced disability of patients with episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) in Phase 3 trials.

AIM

To estimate indirect cost savings associated with GMB treatment in patients with migraine in the United States (US).

METHODS

We analyzed data of patients from the US from three randomized, Phase 3, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled GMB studies: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM patients), REGAIN (CM patients). Annual indirect costs were calculated using items of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire: lost time/productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure time. All costs were annualized and expressed in 2019 US dollars. While the main analysis considered lost time/productivity at work/school and household work as a full day, a sensitivity analysis was performed by discounting them by half. For EM, annual indirect costs savings were estimated using mixed model repeated measures analysis. For CM, ANCOVA models were used to estimate annual indirect costs savings as change from baseline.

RESULTS

The analysis included 805 patients with EM (mean age = 41.4 years; PBO = 534; GMB = 271) and 423 patients with CM (mean age = 38.9 years; PBO = 279; GMB = 144). Compared to PBO, GMB significantly reduced annual indirect costs among patients with EM at 3 months (least square mean [95% confidence interval] work/school = $1,883.6 [603.64-3,163.65], p = .0040, household work = $628.9 [352.95-904.88], p <.0001, and leisure activity = $499.17 [42.36-955.98], p = .0323) and 6 months (work/school = $2,382.29 [1,065.48-3,699.10], p = .0004, household work = $559.45 [268.99-849.90], p = .0002, and leisure activity = $753.81 [334.35-1,173.27], p = .0004), whereas a significant difference was not observed among patients with CM. Sensitivity analysis results were similar to primary analysis results.

CONCLUSIONS

GMB treatment versus PBO resulted in significantly greater indirect cost savings in patients with EM through improved productivity at work/school, household work, and leisure days. Patients with CM receiving GMB versus PBO attained greater cost savings, although not statistically significant, through reduced lost productivity at work/school.

Real-world evidence of galcanezumab for migraine treatment in Japan: a retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab in patients with migraine in a real-world setting in Japan.

BACKGROUND

Galcanezumab is the first anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody approved in Japan. To the best of our knowledge, no real-world studies on galcanezumab have been published in any international journal from Japan.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined patients with migraine who received three doses of galcanezumab between August 2021 and February 2022 at the Keio University Hospital. We assessed changes in monthly migraine days, responder rate, and migraine-associated and premonitory symptoms. We also investigated injection site reactions and adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients received three doses of galcanezumab during the study period. Compared with those at baseline, the monthly migraine days decreased by 5.9 days (95% confidence interval, 4.2-7.7) at 3 months. The 50% responder rate was 61.5% at 3 months. A total of 64.9%, 50.0%, and 63.9% of patients showed improvement in the severity of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea/vomiting, respectively. Premonitory symptoms without subsequent headache were reported in 62.5% of patients. Moreover, injection site reaction was the most common adverse event (34.6%).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab for migraineurs in Japan. Galcanezumab also improved migraine-associated symptoms. However, despite a reduction in headaches, premonitory symptoms without subsequent headache were reported in > 50% of the patients at 3 months.

Advances in Antibody-Based Therapeutics for Cerebral Ischemia

Cerebral ischemia is an acute disorder characterized by an abrupt reduction in blood flow that results in immediate deprivation of both glucose and oxygen. The main types of cerebral ischemia are ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. When a stroke occurs, several signaling pathways are activated, comprising necrosis, apoptosis, and autophagy as well as glial activation and white matter injury, which leads to neuronal cell death. Current treatments for strokes include challenging mechanical thrombectomy or tissue plasminogen activator, which increase the danger of cerebral bleeding, brain edema, and cerebral damage, limiting their usage in clinical settings. Monoclonal antibody therapy has proven to be effective and safe in the treatment of a variety of neurological disorders. In contrast, the evidence for stroke therapy is minimal. Recently, Clone MTS510 antibody targeting toll-like receptor-4 (TLR4) protein, ASC06-IgG1 antibody targeting acid sensing ion channel-1a (ASIC1a) protein, Anti-GluN1 antibodies targeting N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor associated calcium influx, GSK249320 antibody targeting myelin-associated glycoprotein (MAG), anti-High Mobility Group Box-1 antibody targeting high mobility group box-1 (HMGB1) are currently under clinical trials for cerebral ischemia treatment. In this article, we review the current antibody-based pharmaceuticals for neurological diseases, the use of antibody drugs in stroke, strategies to improve the efficacy of antibody therapeutics in cerebral ischemia, and the recent advancement of antibody drugs in clinical practice. Overall, we highlight the need of enhancing blood-brain barrier (BBB) penetration for the improvement of antibody-based therapeutics in the brain, which could greatly enhance the antibody medications for cerebral ischemia in clinical practice.

Serum CGRP in migraine patients using erenumab as preventive treatment

Aim

Serum levels of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-like immunoreactivity (CGRP-LI) in migraine patients before and after starting treatment with erenumab were measured to evaluate the association with clinical treatment response.

Methods

Blood samples were collected from the cubital fossa before (T0) and 2–4 weeks after (T1) starting treatment with erenumab. Clinical response was monitored using a daily headache e-diary. Serum levels of CGRP-LI, assessed using radioimmunoassay, were compared between T0 and T1, correcting for migraine reduction. In addition, for both T0 and T1, linear regression models were constructed using migraine reduction as outcome and serum CGRP-LI as independent variable, corrected for age, gender and monthly migraine days (MMD) at baseline.

Results

Serum CGRP-LI did not differ between T0 and T1 (p = 0.30). However, there was an interaction between time and reduction in MMD (p = 0.01). Absolute reduction in MMD in the third month after treatment with erenumab was associated with serum CGRP-LI at T1, 2–4 weeks after starting treatment with erenumab (p = 0.003), but not with serum CGRP-LI at T0 (p = 0.24).

Conclusion

Lower serum CGRP-LI 2–4 weeks after starting treatment with erenumab was associated with a higher reduction in migraine days after three months of treatment. Although the underlying mechanisms remain to be determined, this suggests that changes in CGRP levels, shortly after starting erenumab, are important for its clinical effect.

• Lower serum levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-like immunoreactivity (CGRP-LI) in migraine patients at 2–4 weeks after starting treatment with erenumab were associated with better treatment response after three months.

• Early changes in serum CGRP may be important for the clinical effect of erenumab in migraine.

Bi-atrial versus left atrial ablation for patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (ABLATION): rationale, design and study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in patients with rheumatic mitral valve disease (RMVD) and increase the risk of stroke and death. Bi-atrial or left atrial ablation remains controversial for treatment of AF during mitral valve surgery. The study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of bi-atrial ablation with those of left atrial ablation among patients with RMVD and persistent or long-standing persistent AF.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ABLATION trial (Bi-atrial vs Left Atrial Ablation for Patients with RMVD and Non-paroxysmal AF) is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled study. The trial will randomly assign 320 patients with RMVD and persistent or long-standing persistent AF to bi-atrial ablation procedure or left atrial ablation procedure in a 1:1 randomisation. The primary end point is freedom from documented AF, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia of >30 s at 12 months after surgery off antiarrhythmic drugs. Key secondary end point is the probability of freedom from permanent pacemaker implantation at 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the probability of freedom from any recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias with antiarrhythmic drugs, AF burden, incidence of adverse events and cardiac function documented by echocardiography at 12 months after operation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The central ethics committee at Fuwai Hospital approved the ABLATION trial. The results of this study will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05021601.

Galcanezumab Effects on Migraine Severity and Symptoms in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine: Secondary Analysis of a Phase 2 Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide, is a preventive migraine treatment. In global, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, galcanezumab reduced migraine headache severity and the frequency of migraine headaches associated with nausea and/or vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia, prodromal symptoms, or aura. We report secondary analyses from a Japanese phase 2 trial that assessed the effect of galcanezumab on migraine headache severity, frequency of migraine-associated symptoms, and frequency of migraine headaches during menstrual periods in Japanese patients with episodic migraine.

METHODS

Adults with migraine (International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition; 4-14 migraine headache days/month) were randomized (2:1:1) to a monthly placebo (n = 230), 120 mg galcanezumab (240 mg loading dose; n = 115), or 240 mg galcanezumab (n = 114) for 6 months (double-blind). Patients recorded migraine headache days, severity, and symptoms in an electronic diary. Changes from baseline were analyzed (mixed model for repeated measures).

RESULTS

Both galcanezumab doses significantly reduced the number of monthly moderate-to-severe and severe migraine headache days compared with placebo, overall (difference in least-squares mean change from baseline, 120 mg/240 mg versus placebo: moderate-to-severe, -1.9/-1.8 days; severe: -0.4/-0.4 days) and in each month; mean severity score was significantly reduced in the 240 mg group. Both galcanezumab doses significantly reduced the number of migraine headache days with nausea/vomiting (-1.1/-1.0 days), photophobia/phonophobia (-2.3/-1.7 days), prodromal symptoms (-0.7/-0.8 days), and aura (-0.7/-0.7 days). In most cases, the proportion of migraine headache days with these symptoms was reduced by galcanezumab. Both galcanezumab doses reduced the number of migraine headache days occurring during menstrual periods (n = 269; -0.8/-0.9 days).

CONCLUSION

Once-monthly galcanezumab significantly reduced the frequency of migraine headache days with moderate-to-severe or severe headache, migraine headache days with migraine-associated symptoms, and migraine headache days during menstrual periods in Japanese patients with episodic migraine, consistent with results from global studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959177).

Involvement of the cerebellum in migraine

Migraine is a disabling neurological disease characterized by moderate or severe headaches and accompanied by sensory abnormalities, e.g., photophobia, allodynia, and vertigo. It affects approximately 15% of people worldwide. Despite advancements in current migraine therapeutics, mechanisms underlying migraine remain elusive. Within the central nervous system, studies have hinted that the cerebellum may play an important sensory integrative role in migraine. More specifically, the cerebellum has been proposed to modulate pain processing, and imaging studies have revealed cerebellar alterations in migraine patients. This review aims to summarize the clinical and preclinical studies that link the cerebellum to migraine. We will first discuss cerebellar roles in pain modulation, including cerebellar neuronal connections with pain-related brain regions. Next, we will review cerebellar symptoms and cerebellar imaging data in migraine patients. Lastly, we will highlight the possible roles of the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine symptoms, including preclinical cerebellar studies in animal models of migraine.

Real-world experience with 240 mg of galcanezumab for the preventive treatment of cluster headache

Background

Galcanezumab of 300 mg monthly is the FDA approved preventive medication for cluster headache (CH) during the cluster period. Compared to the 120 mg galcanezumab syringe for the treatment of migraines, the 100 mg syringe for CH has globally not been as widely available. The aim of our study was to investigate the preventive efficacy and tolerability of two 120 mg galcanezumab doses for episodic CH in clinical practices.

Methods

We evaluated patients with CH who received at least 1 dose of 240 mg (2 prefilled syringe of 120 mg) of galcanezumab in the 3 university hospitals from February 2020 to September 2021. In the patients with episodic CH, the efficacy and safety data of galcanezumab were analyzed regarding to the presence of the conventional preventive therapy at the timing of therapy of galcanezumab. The data of other subtypes of CH were separately described.

Results

In 47 patients with episodic CH, galcanezumab was started median 18 days after the onset of current bout (range 1–62 days) and 4 patients (10.8%) received second dose of galcanezumab. The median time to the first occurrence of 100% reduction from baseline in CH attacks per week after galcanezumab therapy was 17 days (25% to 75% quartile range: 5.0 ~ 29.5) in all patients with episodic CH, 15.5 days (3.8 ~ 22.1) in 36 patients with galcanezumab therapy add-on conventional preventive therapy, 21.0 days (12.0 ~ 31.5) in 11 patients started galcanezumab as initial preventive therapy. Among 33 patients with headache diary, the proportion of patients with 50% or more reduction in weekly CH attacks at week 3 from baseline were 78.8%. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with a reduction of at least 50% in weekly frequency of CH attacks at week 3 between 24 patients received galcanezumab therapy add-on conventional preventive therapy and 9 patient who received initial galcanezumab therapy. (83.3%, vs 66.7%, p = 0.36). There were no significant differences in proportion of “very much better or “much better” between 36 patients received galcanezumab therapy add-on conventional preventive therapy and 11 patient who received initial GT (86.1%, vs 63.6%, p = 0.18).

Conclusion

One 240 mg dose of galcanezumab with/without conventional therapy for the prevention of CH is considered effective and safe in clinical practices, as seen in the clinical trial of galcanezumab.

Atogepant for the prevention of episodic migraine in adults

Objective

Atogepant is a newly approved medication for the prevention of migraine. This review aims to discuss the efficacy, safety, cost, and place in therapy of atogepant.

Methods

The authors performed a systematic search for sources, including articles, abstracts, and poster presentations. Queried databases were the National Institute of Health, US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, European PMC, and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included atogepant, QULIPTA™, AGN-241689, MK-803, and N02CD07. Full-text, English language, randomized-controlled trials from 1 February 2012 to 1 February 2022 were included in the review. Additional relevant prescribing information, abstracts, and articles identified through the search were considered for inclusion in this review. A total of 193 database entries were evaluated for inclusion in this narrative review. Three articles representing two randomized controlled trials were reviewed.

Results and conclusions

Atogepant, a small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, is a daily oral treatment for migraine prevention. In placebo-controlled clinical trials, atogepant decreased mean monthly migraine days (MMD) over 12 weeks in patients with episodic migraine. Major treatment-related adverse effects include nausea and constipation. Long-term placebo-controlled efficacy and safety studies, chronic migraine studies, and studies in patients that failed more than two classes of preventive therapies are still pending. Atogepant represents one of many novel therapies for the prevention of migraine. To date, no head-to-head comparisons of atogepant versus other agents indicated for migraine prevention have been published. Atogepant offers patients an alternative therapy to injectable or infusion monoclonal antibody treatments and offers an alternative to non-specific migraine medications that are associated with poor tolerability. Due to its high cost and narrower therapeutic indications, atogepant may be reserved for a small subset of migraineurs who prefer oral therapy.

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks-Successful translation of basic science to clinical practice

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurovascular disorder afflicting more than 15% of the global population. Nearly three times more females are afflicted by migraine in the 18-50 years age group, compared to males. Migraine attacks are most often sporadic, but a subgroup of individuals experience a gradual increase in frequency over time; among these, up to 1%-2% of the global population develop chronic migraine. Although migraine symptoms have been known for centuries, the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Two theories have dominated the current thinking-a neurovascular theory and a central neuronal theory with the origin of the attacks in the hypothalamus. During the last decades, the understanding of migraine has markedly advanced. This is supported by the early seminal demonstration of the trigeminovascular reflex 35 years ago and the insight that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a key molecule released in acute migraine attacks. The more recent findings that gepants, small molecule CGRP receptor blockers, and monoclonal antibodies generated against CGRP, or its canonical receptor are useful for the treatment of migraine, are other important issues. CGRP has been established as a key molecule in the neurobiology of migraine. Moreover, monoclonal antibodies to CGRP or the CGRP receptor represent a breakthrough in the understanding of migraine pathophysiology and have emerged as an efficacious prophylactic treatment for patients with severe migraine with excellent tolerability. This review describes the progression of research to reach the clinical usefulness of a large group of molecules that have in common the interaction with CGRP mechanisms in the trigeminal system to alleviate the burden for individuals afflicted by migraine.

A phase IV clinical trial of gastrointestinal motility in adult patients with migraine before and after initiation of a calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand (galcanezumab) or receptor (erenumab) antagonist

OBJECTIVE

To compare effects of an initial dose of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) antagonists on gastrointestinal (GI) motility in patients with migraine and to explore if the mechanistic difference contributes to GI adverse events (AEs).

BACKGROUND

Different frequencies of constipation have been observed between CGRP mAbs that target the ligand (galcanezumab [GMB]) or receptor (erenumab [ERE]).

METHODS

Patients (n = 65) with migraine without significant GI symptoms were enrolled in a multi-center, single-blind phase IV clinical trial (NCT04294147) and randomized 1:1 to receive GMB (240 mg; n = 33) or ERE (140 mg; n = 32). GI whole and regional transit times were assessed using a wireless motility capsule 1 week before and 2 weeks after mAb administration. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in colonic transit time (CTT) within each treatment group. Other measures included GI Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), and spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) evaluation. AEs were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics indicated significant GI transit time variability with minimal GI reported symptoms. While not statistically significant, a numerical mean increase in CTT was observed in ERE patients (n = 28, mean [SD] at baseline: 33.8 [29.4] h; least square [LS] mean [SE] change: 5.8 [5.7] h, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.7 to 17.2, p = 0.320), while GMB decreased CTT (n = 31, mean [SD] at baseline: 29.3 [24.5] h; LS mean [SE] change: -5.4 [5.4] h, 95% CI -16.2 to 5.5, p = 0.328) compared to baseline. No meaningful changes were observed in other regional transit times. ERE significantly reduced BSFS (LS mean [SE] score -0.5 [0.2], p = 0.004) and SBM (LS mean [SE] -1.2 [0.5], p = 0.0120), and increased GSRS-constipation compared to baseline (LS mean [SE] score 0.3 [0.1], p = 0.016). GMB increased GSRS-constipation (LS mean [SE] score 0.4 [0.1], p = 0.002). There were no discontinuations due to or serious AEs. A higher percentage of treatment-emergent AEs were reported with ERE than GMB (ERE: nine of 32 [28.1%] versus GMB: three of 33 [9.1%]), with constipation the most frequently reported (ERE: five of 32 [15.6%] versus GMB one of 33 [3.0%]).

CONCLUSION

While the primary endpoint of this study was not met, secondary and tertiary endpoints support a within- and between-treatment change in GI effects suggesting possible mechanistic differences between ligand (GMB) and receptor (ERE) antagonism.

A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore patient preference for attributes of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors for the preventive treatment of migraine and to describe differences in treatment preferences between patients.

BACKGROUND

CGRP inhibitors are a novel class of migraine drugs specifically developed for the preventive treatment of migraine. Clinicians should understand patient preferences for CGRP inhibitors to inform and support prescribing choices.

METHODS

Patients with migraine in the US and Germany were recruited to participate in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey, which presented hypothetical treatment choices using five attributes: mode of administration, side effects, migraine frequency, migraine severity, and consistency of treatment effectiveness. Attribute selection was informed by a literature review and semi-structured patient interviews (n = 35), and evaluated using patient cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 5).

RESULTS

Of 680 who consented to participate, 506 participants completed the survey and were included in the study (US = 257; Germany = 249). Overall, participants placed highest importance (preference weight, beta = 1.65, p < 0.001) on the treatment's ability to reduce the severity of migraine (mild vs. unchanged severity), followed by consistent treatment effectiveness (beta = 1.13, p < 0.001), and higher chance of reduced migraine frequency (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001). Participants preferred an oral tablet every other day (beta = 1.00, p < 0.001) over quarterly infusion, quarterly injections (p = 0.019), or monthly injection (p < 0.001). Preference for all treatment attributes were heterogeneous, and the subgroup analyses found that participants naïve to CGRP monoclonal antibody treatments had a stronger preference for oral therapy compared to those with such experience (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

In this DCE assessing CGRP inhibitors attributes, the main driver of patient choice was treatment effectiveness, specifically reduced migraine severity, and consistent treatment effectiveness. Further, patients exhibited an overall preference for an oral tablet every other day over injectables. Patients' experience with previous treatments informs the value they place on treatment characteristics.

Outpatient Approach to Resistant and Refractory Migraine in Children and Adolescents: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Migraine is one of the top reasons for consulting a pediatric neurologist. Although the majority of children and adolescents who receive evidence-based first-line interventions for migraine will improve substantially, a subset of patients develop resistant or refractory migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we summarize the level of evidence for a variety of acute and preventive treatment options to consider in children and adolescents with resistant or refractory migraine. We describe the level of evidence for interventional procedures (onabotulinumtoxinA injections, greater occipital and other nerve blocks), neuromodulation (single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, external trigeminal nerve stimulation, remote electrical neuromodulation, and non-invasive vagal nerve stimulation), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway antagonists (anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants), psychological therapies, and manual therapies (acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, massage and physical therapy, and spinal manipulation).

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase-Activating Polypeptide (PACAP) in Migraine Pathogenesis

Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating neurologic disorder. Advancements in understanding the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms are spearheading the effort to introduce disease-specific treatment options. In recent years this effort has largely focused on alteration of endogenous neuropeptide signaling, namely the peptides calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP). Human studies into the pathophysiological underpinnings of CGRP and PACAP in migraine are manifold and here we review the works investigating these neuropeptides in patients suffering from migraine in order to elucidate the background for developing new treatment options for this vastly disabling disorder.