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

Objective

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Results of a Web-Based Survey on 2105 Greek Migraine Patients-Second Part: Efficacy of Acute and Prophylactic Migraine Treatments and Corresponding Patients' Reported Satisfaction

Background and Objectives: The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients conducted, in 2020, its second online survey, titled "Migraine in Greece-2020", after publication of the first similar online survey conducted in 2018. To compare the current findings with the corresponding data obtained in 2018, we herein release the second part of results obtained from the 2020 survey on the efficacy of preventive and symptomatic anti-migraine medications and the patients' reported satisfaction with these treatments. Materials and Methods: We surveyed 2105 migraine patients from all over Greece with the use of a 151-questions specific migraine-focused questionnaire in Greek language, which was distributed through the online research software "SurveyMonkey". Results: Triptans were mostly used with efficacy for the symptomatic relief of migraine attacks. About 2 of 3 surveyed patients had received various prophylactic oral medications and the majority of them discontinued these prophylactic medications as a result of inefficacy/safety issues. BoNTA was reported to be effective only when administration was commenced by a trained neurologist/headache specialist, while our current findings are generally comparable to those obtained in our 2018 pre-COVID-19 survey and the pandemic has not imposed any significant attitudes on migraine therapies and corresponding patients' satisfaction. Conclusion: Although a market change is anticipated with the evolving widespread use of anti-CGRPs monoclonal antibodies or gepants in the symptomatic and prophylactic treatment of migraine, it is of great interest to review published results of larger longitudinal population-based studies to further ascertain the satisfaction of patients to migraine therapies.

Efficacy of the Digital Therapeutic sinCephalea in the prophylaxis of migraine in patients with episodic migraine: study protocol for a digital, randomized, open-label, standard treatment controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The German government implemented the Digital Healthcare Act in order to bring Digital Therapeutics into standard medical care. This is one of the first regulatory pathways to reimbursement for Digital Therapeutics (DTx). The Digital Therapeutic sinCephalea is intended to act as a prophylactic treatment of migraine by reducing the migraine days. For this, sinCephalea determines personalized nutritional recommendations using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data and enables the patients to follow a personalized low-glycemic nutrition. Migraine is a headache disorder with the highest socioeconomic burden. Emerging evidence shows that CGM-based personalized nutritional recommendations are of prophylactic use in episodic migraine. However, prospective data are yet missing to demonstrate clinical effectiveness. This study is designed to fill this gap.

METHODS

Patients between 18 and 65 years of age with proven migraine and a minimal disease severity of 3 migraine days per month are included. After a 4-week baseline phase as a pre-study, patients are randomized to the DTx intervention or a waiting-list control. The objective of the study is to show differences between the intervention and control groups regarding the change of migraine symptoms and of effects of migraine on daily life.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic clinical trial with a fully digital program to enable patients with migraine to follow a personalized low-glycemic nutrition in order to reduce their number of migraine days and the migraine-induced impact on daily life. Designing a clinical study using a digital intervention includes some obstacles, which are addressed in this study approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Registry of Clinical Studies (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) DRKS-ID DRKS00024657. Registered on March 8, 2021.

What is the efficacy of aerobic exercise versus strength training in the treatment of migraine? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of clinical trials

Background

Multiple clinical trials with different exercise protocols have demonstrated efficacy in the management of migraine. However, there is no head-to-head comparison of efficacy between the different exercise interventions.

Methods

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed involving all clinical trials which determined the efficacy of exercise interventions in reducing the frequency of monthly migraine. Medical journal search engines included Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus spanning all previous years up to July 30, 2022. Both aerobic and strength/resistance training protocols were included. The mean difference (MD, 95% confidence interval) in monthly migraine frequency from baseline to end-of-intervention between the active and control arms was used as an outcome measure. Efficacy evidence from direct and indirect comparisons was combined by conducting a random effects model network meta-analysis. The efficacy of the three exercise protocols was compared, i.e., moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, high-intensity aerobic exercise, and strength/resistance training. Studies that compared the efficacy of migraine medications (topiramate, amitriptyline) to exercise were included. Additionally, the risk of bias in all included studies was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias version 2 (RoB2).

Results

There were 21 published clinical trials that involved a total of 1195 migraine patients with a mean age of 35 years and a female-to-male ratio of 6.7. There were 27 pairwise comparisons and 8 indirect comparisons. The rank of the interventions was as follows: strength training (MD = -3.55 [− 6.15, − 0.95]), high-intensity aerobic exercise (-3.13 [-5.28, -0.97]), moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (-2.18 [-3.25, -1.11]), topiramate (-0.98 [-4.16, 2.20]), placebo, amitriptyline (3.82 [− 1.03, 8.68]). The RoB2 assessment showed that 85% of the included studies demonstrated low risk of bias, while 15% indicated high risk of bias for intention-to-treat analysis. Sources of high risk of bias include randomization process and handling of missing outcome data.

Conclusion

Strength training exercise regimens demonstrated the highest efficacy in reducing migraine burden, followed by high-intensity aerobic exercise.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01503-y.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Clinic-Based Headache Registries, 1st edition

Clinic-based headache registries collect data for a wide variety of purposes including delineating disease characteristics, longitudinal natural disease courses, headache management approaches, quality of care, treatment safety and effectiveness, factors that predict treatment response, health care resource utilization, clinician adherence to guidelines, and cost-effectiveness. Registry data are valuable for numerous stakeholders, including individuals with headache disorders and their caregivers, healthcare providers, scientists, healthcare systems, regulatory authorities, pharmaceutical companies, employers, and policymakers. This International Headache Society document may serve as guidance for developing clinic-based headache registries. Use of registry data requires a formal research protocol that includes: 1) research aims; 2) methods for data collection, harmonization, analysis, privacy, and protection; 3) methods for human subject protection; and 4) publication and dissemination plans. Depending upon their objectives, headache registries should include validated headache-specific questionnaires, patient reported outcome measures, data elements that are used consistently across studies (i.e., "common data elements"), and medical record data. Amongst other data types, registries may be linked to healthcare and pharmacy claims data, biospecimens, and neuroimaging data. Headache diagnoses should be made according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnostic criteria. The data from well-designed headache registries can provide wide-ranging and novel insights into the characteristics, burden, and treatment of headache disorders and ultimately lead to improvements in the management of patients with headache.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache

In 1995, a committee of the International Headache Society developed and published the first edition of the Guidelines for Controlled Trials of Drugs in Cluster Headache. These have not been revised. With the emergence of new medications, neuromodulation devices and trial designs, an updated version of the International Headache Society Guidelines for Controlled Clinical Trials in Cluster Headache is warranted. Given the scarcity of evidence-based data for cluster headache therapies, the update is largely consensus-based, but takes into account lessons learned from recent trials and demands by patients. It is intended to apply to both drug and neuromodulation treatments, with specific proposals for the latter when needed. The primary objective is to propose a template for designing high quality, state-of-the-art, controlled clinical trials of acute and preventive treatments in episodic and chronic cluster headache. The recommendations should not be regarded as dogma and alternative solutions to particular methodological problems should be explored in the future and scientifically validated.

Predicting response to tVNS in patients with migraine using functional MRI: A voxels-based machine learning analysis

Background

Migraine is a common disorder, affecting many patients. However, for one thing, lacking objective biomarkers, misdiagnosis, and missed diagnosis happen occasionally. For another, though transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) could alleviate migraine symptoms, the individual difference of tVNS efficacy in migraineurs hamper the clinical application of tVNS. Therefore, it is necessary to identify biomarkers to discriminate migraineurs as well as select patients suitable for tVNS treatment.

Methods

A total of 70 patients diagnosed with migraine without aura (MWoA) and 70 matched healthy controls were recruited to complete fMRI scanning. In study 1, the fractional amplitude of low-frequency fluctuation (fALFF) of each voxel was calculated, and the differences between healthy controls and MWoA were compared. Meaningful voxels were extracted as features for discriminating model construction by a support vector machine. The performance of the discriminating model was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In addition, a mask of these significant brain regions was generated for further analysis. Then, in study 2, 33 of the 70 patients with MWoA in study 1 receiving real tVNS were included to construct the predicting model in the generated mask. Discriminative features of the discriminating model in study 1 were used to predict the reduction of attack frequency after a 4-week tVNS treatment by support vector regression. A correlation coefficient between predicted value and actual value of the reduction of migraine attack frequency was conducted in 33 patients to assess the performance of predicting model after tVNS treatment. We vislized the distribution of the predictive voxels as well as investigated the association between fALFF change (post-per treatment) of predict weight brain regions and clinical outcomes (frequency of migraine attack) in the real group.

Results

A biomarker containing 3,650 features was identified with an accuracy of 79.3%, sensitivity of 78.6%, and specificity of 80.0% (p < 0.002). The discriminative features were found in the trigeminal cervical complex/rostral ventromedial medulla (TCC/RVM), thalamus, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), and temporal gyrus. Then, 70 of 3,650 discriminative features were identified to predict the reduction of attack frequency after tVNS treatment with a correlation coefficient of 0.36 (p = 0.03). The 70 predictive features were involved in TCC/RVM, mPFC, temporal gyrus, middle cingulate cortex (MCC), and insula. The reduction of migraine attack frequency had a positive correlation with right TCC/RVM (r = 0.433, p = 0.021), left MCC (r = 0.451, p = 0.016), and bilateral mPFC (r = 0.416, p = 0.028), and negative with left insula (r = −0.473, p = 0.011) and right superior temporal gyrus/middle temporal gyrus (r = −0.684, p < 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

By machine learning, the study proposed two potential biomarkers that could discriminate patients with MWoA and predict the efficacy of tVNS in reducing migraine attack frequency. The pivotal features were mainly located in the TCC/RVM, thalamus, mPFC, and temporal gyrus.

Manual acupuncture as prophylaxis for migraine without aura: study protocol for a multi-center, randomized, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological disorder. It is the third most prevalent disorder and the seventh highest cause of disability worldwide. Acupuncture may be a viable prophylactic treatment option for frequent or uncontrolled migraine. Clinical studies comparing acupuncture and placebo acupuncture have not reached a consistent conclusion in confirming whether acupuncture is effective in migraine prophylaxis. The effect of acupuncture mainly depends on acupoints and needles operation. We found that the design of the placebo acupuncture in previous studies included shallow needling at sham acupoints, non-penetrating needling at sham acupoints, and needling at inactive acupuncture points to achieve the inert effect of control group, but the non-penetrating needling at true acupoints was ignored. This randomized controlled trial aims to use true acupoints for non-penetrating acupuncture as control to evaluate the efficacy of manual acupuncture for the prophylaxis of migraine without aura (MWoA).

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a single-blinded, randomized, controlled, prospective, multi-center trial with two parallel treatment groups. A total of 198 eligible patients with MWoA will be randomly divided into two groups (1:1 allocation ratio). The intervention group will receive manual acupuncture and the control group will receive placebo acupuncture (non-penetrating). Patients will receive three acupuncture treatment sessions per week for 4 consecutive weeks. All patients will then receive a 12-week follow-up.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we are evaluating the efficacy and safety of manual acupuncture in the prophylaxis of MWoA. The placebo control is using non-penetrating needling verum acupoints. It is essential to determine an appropriate control method to ensure the methodological quality of a randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (approval no. ChiCTR2000032308 ) in April 2020.

A Digital Therapeutic Allowing a Personalized Low-Glycemic Nutrition for the Prophylaxis of Migraine: Real World Data from Two Prospective Studies

Migraine is a headache disorder associated with a high socioeconomic burden. The digital therapeutic sinCephalea provides an individualized low-glycemic diet based on continuous glucose measurement and is intended to provide a non-pharmacological migraine prophylaxis. We performed two prospective studies with migraine patients who used sinCephalea over a period of 16 weeks. The patients used a headache diary and recorded their migraine-related daily life impairments using the assessment tools HIT-6 and MIDAS for a pre versus post comparison. In addition, continuous glucose data of patients were compared to healthy controls. In both studies, patients reported a reduction of headache and migraine days as well as reductions in HIT-6 and MIDAS scores. More specifically, migraine days decreased by 2.40 days (95% CI [−3.37; −1.42]), HIT-6 improved by 3.17 points (95% CI [−4.63; −1.70]) and MIDAS by 13.45 points (95% CI [−22.01; −4.89]). Glucose data suggest that migraine patients have slightly increased mean glucose values compared to healthy controls, but drop into a glucose range that is below one’s individual standard range before a migraine attack. In conclusion, sinCephalea is a non-pharmacological, digital migraine prophylaxis that induces a therapeutic effect within the range of pharmacological interventions.

Efficacy and Safety of Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Using Robust Variance Estimation Model

Background

Migraine is a prevalent headache disorder with significant impacts on patients' quality of life and economic burden. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is commonly prescribed for migraine in China. This review aimed to provide a rigorous evaluation of evidence on the efficacy of oral CHM for migraine and explore the correlation between its effect size and treatment duration.

Methods

We searched nine digital databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED, BioMedical Literature, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang Data) from their inceptions to May 2021, with the language being restricted to Chinese and English. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials using oral CHM to treat adult migraine were included. Data screening and extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the effect size using a random effect model, and a robust variance estimation (RVE) model was constructed to explore the correlation between treatment effects and treatment duration. The certainty of the evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Publication bias was tested using a funnel plot and Egger's test.

Results

A total of 18 RCTs involving 3,015 participants were included. Results of the meta-analyses showed that, at the end of the treatment phase, CHM was more efficacious than placebo in reducing migraine frequency, migraine days, and pain severity, and increasing response rate. Additionally, CHM showed superior effects to placebo in lowering migraine frequency and pain severity at the end of the 4-week follow-up. The RVE model suggested that the benefits of CHM for migraine frequency and pain intensity increased as treatment duration extended. The number of adverse events reported by the CHM and placebo groups was comparable. The certainty of the evidence was graded as “moderate.” No publication bias was detected.

Conclusion

Oral CHM appeared to be more efficacious than placebo for reducing migraine frequency and pain severity. Greater treatment effects were associated with longer treatment duration. The oral CHM was well tolerated.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD42021270719.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Discussion

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

Beyond pain control: Outcome and treatment preferences in pediatric migraine

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures among children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND

Across disciplines, there is increasing recognition of the value of direct input from stakeholders. Little empirical work has been done to determine what outcomes matter most to pediatric patients with migraine and their caregivers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, we recruited participants from the multicenter, prospective Pediatric Migraine Registry. We used stratified purposive sampling to recruit children and adolescents of varied ages and headache frequency. Patients with migraine and their caregivers completed semistructured interviews targeting treatment preferences and perceived quality of existing outcome measures. Emergent themes and subthemes were identified using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty dyads of children/adolescents and their caregivers were enrolled and completed 59 interviews (n = 29 children/adolescent interviews and n = 30 caregiver interviews). Three themes emerged. (1) Symptom relief: Looking beyond headache resolution: Participants described the value of outcomes in addition to pain relief, including a reduction in migraine intensity and improvement in non-pain symptoms. (2) Trade-offs between side effects and relief: Participants described cost-benefit analyses that can occur with headache treatment and acknowledged the impact of drug side effects on daily life and medication adherence. (3) Child-centered treatment: Participants described medication attributes salient to the pediatric context, including age-appropriate routes of administration and adequate safety data.

CONCLUSIONS

Children, adolescents, and caregivers impacted by migraine value outcomes in addition to traditionally studied migraine endpoints. Participants valued decreased pain severity, even in the absence of pain resolution. Participants also prioritized the absence of side effects and key medication attributes, including fast onset and age-appropriate routes of administration. These results highlight an opportunity to design patient-centered clinical trials, develop drugs, and support product labeling that align with the outcomes valued most by children and adolescents with migraine and their caregivers.

Efficacy of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for the Prophylaxis of Migraine in Adults: A Three-Armed Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Behavioral approaches are central to the preventive treatment of migraine but empirical evidence regarding efficacy and effectiveness is still sparse. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed migraine-specific, integrative cognitive-behavioral therapy program (miCBT) combining several approaches (trigger and stress management, coping with fear of attacks, relaxation training) by comparing it with a single behavioral approach (relaxation training, RLX) as an active control group and a waiting-list control group (WLC).

Methods

In a three-armed open-label randomized controlled trial, 121 adults with migraine were assigned to either miCBT, RLX or WLC. The outpatient group therapy (miCBT or RLX) consisted of seven sessions each 90 min. Participants who completed the WLC were subsequently randomized to one of the two treatment groups. Primary outcomes were headache days, headache-related disability, emotional distress, and self-efficacy. The baseline was compared to post-treatment, and followed by assessments 4- and 12-months post-treatment to compare miCBT and RLX.

Results

Mixed-model analyses (intention-to-treat sample, 106 participants) showed significantly stronger pre-post improvements in self-efficacy (assessed by the Headache Management Self-Efficacy Scale, HMSE-G-SF) in both treatment groups compared to the WLC (mean difference at post; miCBT: 4.67 [0.55–8.78], p = 0.027; RLX: 4.42 [0.38 to 8.46], p = 0.032), whereas no other significant between-group differences were observed. The follow-up analyses revealed significant within-group improvements from baseline to 12-month follow-up in all four primary outcomes for both treatments. However, between-group effects (miCBT vs. RLX) were not significant at follow-up.

Conclusion

The miCBT has no better treatment effects compared to RLX in migraine-prophylaxis. Both treatments effectively increase patients' self-efficacy.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de; DRKS-ID: DRKS00011111).

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Challenges and complexities in designing cluster headache prevention clinical trials: A narrative review

Objective

To provide a review of challenges in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of cluster headache (CH) and highlight considerations for future studies.

Background

Current guidelines for preventive treatment of CH are largely based on off‐label therapies supported by a limited number of small randomized controlled trials. Guidelines for clinical trial design for CH treatments from the International Headache Society were last issued in 1995.

Methods/Results

Randomized controlled clinical trials were identified in the European and/or United States clinical trial registries with a search term of “cluster headache,” and manually reviewed. Cumulatively, there were 27 unique placebo‐controlled prevention trials for episodic and/or chronic CH, of which 12 were either ongoing, not yet recruiting, or the status was unknown. Of the remaining 15 trials, 5 were terminated early and 7 of the 10 completed trials enrolled fewer patients than planned or did not report the planned sample size. A systematic search of PubMed was also utilized to identify published manuscripts reporting results from placebo‐controlled preventive trials of CH. This search yielded 16 publications, of which 7 were registered. Through critical review of trial data and published manuscripts, challenges and complexities encountered in clinical trials for the preventive treatment of CH were identified. For example, the excruciating pain associated with CH demands a suitably limited baseline duration, rapid treatment efficacy onset, and poses a specific issue regarding duration of investigational treatment period and length of exposure to placebo. In episodic CH, spontaneous remission as part of natural history, and the unpredictability and irregularity of cluster periods across patients present additional key challenges.

Conclusions

Optimal CH trial design should balance sound methodology to demonstrate efficacy of a potential treatment with patient needs and the natural history of the disease, including unique outcome measures and endpoint timings for chronic versus episodic CH.

Real-world efficacy of galcanezumab for the treatment of migraine in Korean patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

We aimed to provide real-world data on the effectiveness of an anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibody administered for treating migraine in Korean patients.

METHODS

We prospectively recruited patients with migraine who received galcanezumab treatment at a single university hospital from June 2020 to April 2021. The treatment response was assessed after three consecutive monthly injections. A 50% responder rate was evaluated based on ≥50% reduction in the number of moderate/severe headache days.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients were included in the analysis. Most patients were women (83.9%). They had a mean age of 41.7 ± 12.3 years (range 17-72). Sixty-five patients (74.7%) had chronic migraine, 35 patients (40.2%) had a history of medication-overuse headache, and 32 patients (36.8%) were previously unresponsive to or found intolerable five classes of preventive medication. After three months of treatment, mean changes in numbers of monthly headache days, moderate/severe headache days, crystal clear days, and days of acute medication use were -7.2 ± 8.43, -4.3 ± 9.76, 7.3 ± 8.50, and -4.1 ± 7.93, respectively. The 50% responder rates were 58.3%, 44.2%, and 40.6% for patients with unsuccessful previous use of 0-1, 2-4, and 5 preventive medication classes, respectively. Headache Impact Test-6 and Migraine Disability Assessment Test scores also decreased (-4.4 ± 8.09 and -32.9 ± 77.04, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab were comparable with those reported in clinical trials, whereas a higher response rate was observed in the difficult-to-treat patient subset than that reported in trials. We provide real-world evidence of galcanezumab treatment benefits in Asian patients with migraine.

Does “wearing off” of efficacy occur in galcanezumab‐treated patients at the end of the monthly treatment cycle? Post hoc analyses of four phase III randomized trials

Objective

The purpose of this study was to propose a definition of “wearing off” at the individual patient‐level and determine the percentage of patients with migraine who experience “wearing off” of efficacy of galcanezumab at the end of a treatment cycle using this predefined threshold.

Background

Anecdotal reports suggest that some patients may experience “wearing off” of efficacy during the last week of their calcitonin gene‐related peptide monoclonal antibody treatment cycle. A previous post hoc analysis of galcanezumab demonstrated consistent efficacy at each week throughout all monthly dosing intervals at the population‐level, but “wearing off” has not been assessed at the individual patient‐level.

Methods

Post hoc analyses of clinical trial data from four galcanezumab phase III, randomized, placebo‐controlled studies in a total of 2680 patients with high‐frequency episodic migraine (EVOLVE‐1, EVOLVE‐2, and CONQUER studies) or chronic migraine (CM; REGAIN and CONQUER studies) were conducted. “Wearing off” was defined as an increase of greater than or equal to 2 weekly migraine headache days in the last week of the treatment cycle compared to the second week for at least 2 months. The analyses were conducted (1) in all patients and (2) in patients with a clinically meaningful response to treatment.

Results

The percentage of patients meeting the threshold of “wearing off” was not statistically significantly different among the placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups, both in the total population and in patients with a clinically meaningful response (all ≤9.0%). Although the frequency of “wearing off” in patients with CM and prior preventive failures was numerically greater in the galcanezumab groups (8/89 or 9.0%) compared to placebo (3/95 or 3.2%), these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Consistent with previous analyses at the population‐level that showed no evidence of decreased efficacy at the end of a treatment cycle, rates of individual patients meeting the threshold of “wearing off” in this analysis were low and similar among placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg, and galcanezumab 240 mg treatment groups.

Reducing the physical, social, and emotional impact of episodic migraine: Results from erenumab STRIVE and ARISE phase III randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine changes in the functional impact of migraine following treatment with erenumab, as measured by the Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire (MFIQ).

BACKGROUND

The MFIQ, a novel patient-reported outcome (PRO) measuring the impact of migraine on four domains (physical function, social function, and emotional function [PF, SF, and EF]; usual activities [UAs]) and a single item assessing overall impact on UA, was included in phase III trials evaluating erenumab 70 and 140 mg monthly for migraine prevention among people with episodic migraine (EM).

METHODS

In the ARISE study, 577 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab 70 mg or placebo. In the STRIVE study, 955 patients with EM were randomized to erenumab, 70 mg or 140 mg or placebo. Pairwise comparisons of least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline in MFIQ scores (with associated 95% confidence interval [CI]) were assessed for each active treatment versus placebo.

RESULTS

In ARISE, greater reductions from baseline to month 3 were observed for 70 mg versus placebo for PF (LSM [95% CI]: -3.2 [-6.4 to -0.1]; p = 0.046) and EF (-4.0 [-7.3 to -0.7]; p = 0.019) domain scores. In STRIVE, between-group differences also reflected reductions from baseline to the average of months 4-6 that favored erenumab on all four MFIQ domain scores. Reductions in impact for 70 mg compared to placebo were -4.3 (95% CI: -6.8 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for PF, -4.0 (-6.3 to -1.7; p < 0.001) for UA, -3.7 (-6.1 to -1.2; p = 0.003) for SF, and -5.3 (-7.9 to -2.6; p < 0.001) for EF domain scores. Improvements were also observed for 140 mg versus placebo with between-group differences of -5.7 (95% CI: -8.2 to -3.2; p < 0.001) in PF, -5.1 (-7.5 to -2.8; p < 0.001) in UA, -5.0 (-7.4 to -2.6; p < 0.001) in SF, and -7.2 (-9.9 to -4.5; p < 0.001) in EF domain scores. There were also greater improvements in the overall impact on UA score for 70 mg (LSM [95% CI]: -4.3 [-7.0 to -1.7]; p = 0.001) and 140 mg (-5.3 [-8.5 to -3.2]; p < 0.001) versus placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The MFIQ measures the frequency of impacts and level of difficulty on multiple functional domains that provide a more complete picture of the effects of migraine. MFIQ scores showed that in comparison with placebo, patients treated with erenumab had greater reductions in the functional impact of migraine, providing insight into treatment benefits that extend beyond improvements in clinical status and health-related quality of life previously reported based on clinical end points and other PROs.

The efficacy and safety of atogepant for the prophylactic treatment of migraine: evidence from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common neurovascular disorder that has a severe impact on the individual daily life. Atogepant (AGN-241689) is an orally ingested, small-molecule drugs belonging to calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, which has been initiated for the prophylactic treatment of migraine. However, there is no comprehensive literature to study the efficacy and safety of atogepant for the treatment of migraine. In this article, we present a meta-analysis of the available studies.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched before October 20, 2021 for any relevant literature. Eventually, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 2,466 patients were included in our study.

RESULTS

We pooled 2,466 patients from 3 RCTs and primary outcome was mean monthly migraine days, the secondary endpoints were monthly headache days, acute medication use days per month and ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, baseline to end of trials. It was found that atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, 60 mg once a day) led to a significant reduction in monthly migraine days (P < 0.00001, P < 0.00001, P = 0.007), monthly headache days (P < 0.00001, P < 0.00001, P = 0.001), and monthly medication use days (P < 0.00001, P < 0.00001, P = 0.0001), and an increase in the proportion of people with ≥ 50% reduction in monthly migraine days (P = 0.0008, P = 0.02, P = 0.04) in comparison with placebo. Moreover, there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in outcomes of adverse events between atogepant and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Atogepant has shown good efficacy and safety in the prophylactic treatment of migraine, and further studies are expected.

Effect of Galcanezumab on Total Pain Burden in Patients Who Had Previously Not Benefited from Migraine Preventive Medication (CONQUER Trial): A Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In evaluating therapies for migraine prevention, emphasis is placed on frequency and less attention is paid to duration or severity. Total pain burden (TPB) combines frequency, duration, and severity of migraine headache, and has the potential to further characterize the benefit of preventive treatment using a single composite measure. TPB was previously used to characterize response to galcanezumab (GMB) in patients with migraine. In this post hoc analysis we assessed the impact of GMB in lowering TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication.

METHODS

CONQUER trial patients (N = 462), 18-75 years old who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication, were randomized (1:1) to monthly placebo or GMB 120 mg with 240 mg loading dose. For each patient, monthly TPB in severity-weighted hours was calculated by multiplying migraine headache duration (hours) by maximum severity for each migraine headache day, then summing these daily scores over the month for the monthly score. Changes from baseline in monthly TPB across months 1-3 were analyzed. Spearman correlations between TPB and scores on the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) total and Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) were assessed at baseline.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) baseline monthly TPB was 192.1 (158.3) and 188.2 (197.4) severity-weighted hours for GMB-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Across the 3-month double-blind period, GMB-treated patients experienced significantly greater mean reductions from baseline in monthly TPB compared with placebo-treated patients, both for mean change (GMB - 82.7, placebo - 15.8, p < 0.001) and percentage change (GMB - 38.6%, placebo 9.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, baseline TPB correlated with MSQ score (r = - 0.39) and MIDAS score (r = 0.40), suggesting good association of TPB with functional and disability outcomes.

CONCLUSION

GMB reduced mean TPB in patients who had previously not benefited from two to four categories of migraine preventive medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03559257.

Placebo response with subcutaneous injections in calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor monoclonal antibody migraine preventative trials – A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

The majority of CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention are administered subcutaneously. Therefore, we attempted to calculate the pooled placebo response with subcutaneous placebo injections in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods:

We identified 16 randomized controlled trials that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria through a comprehensive search in five electronic databases (PubMed Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library and clinicaltrials.gov ). The risk of bias was assessed for all included studies. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled mean monthly migraine days and 50% response rates.

Results:

A total of 4240 subjects were included from 16 studies in this meta-analysis. The pooled mean monthly migraine day reduction with subcutaneous placebo injections was 2.15 (95% CI: 1.60–2.69). The pooled proportion of patients achieving a 50% reduction in mean monthly headache days was 26% (95% CI: 20%–31%). Placebo response accounted for more than 50% of therapeutic gain in our study.

Conclusion:

A substantial placebo response was noted with subcutaneous injections in migraine CGRP monoclonal antibody clinical trials. This meta-analysis may serve as a reference point to calculate sample size in clinical trials using subcutaneous interventions for migraine prevention. We registered our study at PROSPERO (CRD42020185300).

Deterioration of headache impact and health-related quality of life in migraine patients after cessation of preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies

Background

Migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(−receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) has a positive effect on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The German treatment guidelines recommend discontinuing successful treatment with CGRP(−receptor) mAbs after 6–12 months. We aimed to evaluate headache-specific and generic HRQoL for three months after discontinuation of CGRP(−receptor) mAb treatment.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, longitudinal cohort study, including patients with migraine after 8–12 months of therapy with a CGRP(−R) mAb and before a planned discontinuation attempt. HRQoL was assessed at the time of the last mAbs injection (V1), eight weeks later (V2), and sixteen weeks later (V3). For headache-specific HRQoL, we used the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6). Generic HRQoL was determined with the EuroQol-5-Dimension-5-Level (ED-5D-5L) form, and the Short-Form 12 (SF-12), which comprises a Physical Component Summary (PCS-12) and a Mental Component Summary (MCS-12).

Questionnaires’ total scores were compared across the three observation points using nonparametric procedures.

Results

The study cohort consisted of n = 61 patients (n = 29 treated with the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab and n = 32 with the CGRP mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab). The HIT-6 sum score was 59.69 ± 6.90 at V1 and increased by 3.69 ± 6.21 at V3 (p < 0.001), indicating a greater headache impact on patients’ lives. The mean total EQ-D5-L5 score declined from 0.85 ± 0.17 at V1 by − 0.07 ± 0.18 at V3 (p = 0.013). Both Mental and Physical Component Scores of the SF-12 worsened significantly during treatment discontinuation: The PCS-12 total score decreased by − 4.04 ± 7.90 from V1 to V3 (p = 0.013) and the MCS-12 score by − 2.73 ± 9.04 (p = 0.003). Changes in all questionnaires’ scores but the MCS-12 were already significant in the first month of the drug holiday (V2).

Conclusions

Our results show a significant decline in headache impact and generic HRQoL of migraine patients after treatment discontinuation of a CGRP(−R) mAb. The observed deterioration is above the established minimally clinically important differences for each of the questionnaires and can therefore be considered clinically meaningful. Monitoring HRQoL during a discontinuation attempt could facilitate the decision whether or not to resume preventive treatment with CGRP(−R) mAbs.

In search of a gold standard patient-reported outcome measure to use in the evaluation and treatment-decision making in migraine prevention. A real-world evidence study

Background

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) have been developed to numerically quantify disability, impact and quality of life. They have been widely used in migraine clinical trials. However, we still do not know which PRO more accurately reflects preventive treatment response from a patient’s perspective or which one may help us with treatment decisions in clinical practice. They have been used to enforce the efficacy results in clinical trials and real-world evidence so far. The aim of this study was to analyze which PROM is (1) better correlated with all primary efficacy endpoints and (2) which one is better associated with treatment continuation with CGRP-mAbs at week-12, which is usually the moment when this decision is made.

Methods

Patients with migraine who had received 3 administrations of CGRP-mAbs were evaluated in this prospective cohort study. Primary efficacy outcomes considered: a change in migraine days (MMD), headache days (MHD), pain intensity (INT), acute medication days (AMD) and 50% responder rate. The Spearman coefficient (r_s) was the measure used for quantify the strength of the correlation between PROMs and treatment efficacy outcomes changes. A stepwise logistic regression identified which PROM was independently associated with treatment continuation at week-12.

Results

263 patients completed 12 weeks of treatment. The efficacy outcomes and PROMs scores were statistically significantly reduced at week-12 for all patients. The role function-restrictive (RFR) domain of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQ) questionnaire was statistically significantly correlated with all primary efficacy outcomes. Relative changes in MSQ total score (OR[95%]: 0.840[0.619-0.973]; p=0.037) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale (OR[95%]: 15.569[6.254-31.533]; p<0.001) were the PROMs associated with treatment continuation as independent factors at week-12.

Conclusions

Changes in MSQ questionnaire and PGIC scale at week-12 were the PROMs with higher association with CGRP-mAbs response from a patient’s perspective and medical decision-taking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01366-9.

Preventive effect of greater occipital nerve block on patients with episodic migraine: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Since the data regarding the efficacy of greater occipital in episodic migraines are rare, we aimed to examine the efficacy of greater occipital block in the prophylaxis of episodic migraines without aura and compare different injectable drug regimens.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial, adult patients suffering from episodic migraines without aura were randomized to one of the following: triamcinolone, lidocaine, triamcinolone plus lidocaine, and saline. Patients were assessed at baseline, one week, two weeks, and four weeks after the injection for severity and duration of headaches and side effects.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients completed the study. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated that the severity and duration decreased significantly after the greater occipital block (P < 0.001, P = 0.001 respectively) in all four groups. However, there was no difference between groups at any study time points (P > 0.05). In paired sample T-test, only groups 2 and 3 with lidocaine as a part of the injection showed a significant decrease in frequency compared to the baseline (P = 0.002, P = 0.019). Three patients reported side effects with a possible association with triamcinolone.

CONCLUSION

Greater occipital block with a local anesthetic significantly decreases the number of attacks in episodic migraine, whereas no injection was superior to the placebo in regards to the duration and severity of the headaches.Trial Registration Information: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT). Registration number: IRCT2017070334879N1. https://www.irct.ir/trial/26537.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimal important change and responsiveness of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score (MIDAS) questionnaire

Background

The MIDAS is the most used questionnaire to evaluate migraine-related disability, but its utility to assess treatment response remains unclear. Our aim was to estimate the MIDAS’ minimal important change (MIC) value and its responsiveness.

Methods

A total of 103 patients were enrolled in a non-pharmacological, preference-based clinical trial. MIDAS and global rating of self-perceived change (GRoC) scores were collected at baseline, after 5 weeks of treatment, 4-weeks and 3-months follow-up after treatment. Anchor-based approaches were used to establish MIC values and responsiveness.

Findings

In all 3 timepoint comparisons, MIDAS presented a MIC of 4.5 points. A moderate positive correlation was identified between the MIDAS change and GRoC scores. The area under the curve ranged from 0.63 to 0.68.

Conclusions

This study showed that MIDAS has a limited responsiveness to change. A change of 4.5 points or more represents a clinically important change for patients with high frequent migraine and chronic migraine receiving non-pharmacological treatment.

Mapping Migraine-Specific Quality of Life to Health State Utilities in Patients Receiving Rimegepant

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition, affecting up to 15% of Americans. Recent estimates from a long-term safety study of rimegepant showed evidence of decreased monthly migraine days (MMD) in people with episodic migraine treated with rimegepant 75 mg. The objective of this study was to characterize migraine-specific quality of life version 2.1 (MSQv2) scores and corresponding mapped EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) utility values.

METHODS

Study participants were randomized into two treatment regimens: individuals with 2-14 MMD received rimegepant 75 mg as needed (PRN), and those with 4-14 MMD at baseline who received rimegepant on a fixed every-other-day schedule plus an as needed dose on days they did not treat (QOD + PRN). MSQv2 was mapped to EQ-5D-3L utilities using a validated algorithm. Outcomes were assessed for the PRN arm at baseline weeks 12, 24, 36, and 52 and for the QOD + PRN arm at baseline and week 12.

RESULTS

At baseline, MSQv2 data were available for 1,800 patients: 1,033 with 2-8 MMD in the PRN group, 481 with 9-14 MMD in the PRN group, and 286 with 4-14 MMD in the QOD + PRN group. For all MSQv2 domains as well as mapped utility values, outcomes improved over each study visit. At baseline, EQ-5D-3L utilities were 0.66, 0.63, and 0.65 for the 2-8 MMD PRN, 9-14 MMD PRN, and 4-14 MMD QOD + PRN groups, respectively. At end-of-study, utilities had increased by + 0.09, + 0.10, and + 0.12 for the three groups, respectively (p < 0.001 for all comparisons with baseline). Similar trends in improvement were observed across MSQv2 subdomains; all differences were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant 75 mg, which has been shown to be associated with reduced MMD, is associated with improvement in MSQv2 domains over time, leading to estimated improvement in EQ-5D-3L utilities. While this improvement was observed in all patient-groups, it was most pronounced in those with higher MMD and those taking rimegepant QOD + PRN.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT03266588.

Dilemma of migraine diagnosis and management among non-neurologists

Background

Migraine is a common and debilitating disorder however there is a wide gap in its diagnosis and management. Many migraine patients present to non-neurologists, so it is of utmost importance that non neurologists become well oriented with the diagnostic criteria and different lines of management. The aim of the study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of non-neurologists towards migraine.

Results

About 45% of physicians in our study refer migraine patients to non-neurologists, only 20.96% are aware of both classic and novel treatments, 43% had poor knowledge of migraine symptoms and management, 32.34% recommended using medical tailored programs to increase the awareness of non-neurologists regarding migraine.

Conclusions

There is a wide gap of knowledge concerning migraine among non-neurologists.

Treatment with the monoclonal calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antibody erenumab: A real-life study

Background and purpose

New prophylactics for migraine, targeting calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP), have recently emerged. Real‐world data are important for a comprehensive understanding of treatment response. We assessed the consistency of response to erenumab, a monoclonal CGRP receptor antibody, in a real‐world setting, in order to determine which patients may be considered responders in clinical practice.

Methods

All erenumab‐treated patients (n = 100) completed a time‐locked daily electronic diary, and an automated algorithm was used to monitor treatment response. Monthly migraine days (MMD), non‐migrainous headache days, days of acute medication use (MAMD), well‐being and coping with pain were assessed for a 6‐month period. The primary outcome was reduction in MMD compared to baseline.

Results

The numbers of MMD and MAMD decreased in all months, in both episodic and chronic migraine patients, compared to baseline (p < 0.001), while general well‐being (p < 0.001) and coping with pain (p < 0.001) also improved. Of all patients, 36% had an MMD reduction of ≥50% in ≥3/6 months, and 6% had such a reduction in all 6 months. For a ≥30% MMD reduction, the figures were 60% and 24%, respectively. Almost 90% of patients with an average MMD reduction of ≥30% over the first 3 months had a sustained response in the last 3 months. In addition, 20% of patients without an initial response (average <30%), had a delayed response (average ≥30%) in the last 3 months.

Conclusion

Erenumab was effective in migraine patients who were highly refractory to previous prophylactics. As a practical guideline, we propose that treatment be continued for at least 6 months and that patients with a ≥30% MMD reduction in at least half of the treatment period should be considered to be responders.

Atogepant for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

In a phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned adults with 4 to 14 migraine days per month in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive a once-daily dose of oral atogepant (10 mg, 30 mg, or 60 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean number of migraine days per month across the 12 weeks. Secondary end points included headache days per month, a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the 3-month average of migraine days per month, quality of life, and scores on the Activity Impairment in Migraine-Diary (AIM-D).

RESULTS

A total of 2270 participants were screened, 910 were enrolled, and 873 were included in the efficacy analysis; 214 were assigned to the 10-mg atogepant group, 223 to the 30-mg atogepant group, 222 to the 60-mg atogepant group, and 214 to the placebo group. The mean number of migraine days per month at baseline ranged from 7.5 to 7.9 in the four groups. The changes from baseline across 12 weeks were -3.7 days with 10-mg atogepant, -3.9 days with 30-mg atogepant, -4.2 days with 60-mg atogepant, and -2.5 days with placebo. The mean differences from placebo in the change from baseline were -1.2 days with 10-mg atogepant (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to -0.6), -1.4 days with 30-mg atogepant (95% CI, -1.9 to -0.8), and -1.7 days with 60-mg atogepant (95% CI, -2.3 to -1.2) (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Results for the secondary end points favored atogepant over placebo with the exceptions of the AIM-D Performance of Daily Activities score and the AIM-D Physical Impairment score for the 10-mg dose. The most common adverse events were constipation (6.9 to 7.7% across atogepant doses) and nausea (4.4 to 6.1% across atogepant doses). Serious adverse events included one case each of asthma and optic neuritis in the 10-mg atogepant group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral atogepant once daily was effective in reducing the number of migraine days and headache days over a period of 12 weeks. Adverse events included constipation and nausea. Longer and larger trials are needed to determine the effect and safety of atogepant for migraine prevention. (Funded by Allergan; ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03777059.).

Manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education in migraine treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many people suffering from migraine combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an updated guideline for some widely used non-pharmacological treatment options for migraine.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review of randomized studies of adults with migraine treated with manual joint mobilisation techniques, supervised physical activity, psychological treatment, acupuncture and patient education. The main outcomes measured were days with headache and quality of life. Recommendations were formulated based on the Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach including patient preferences based on expert opinion and questionnaire data.

RESULTS

The overall level of certainty of the evidence was low to very low. Manual therapy techniques and psychological treatment did not change the studied outcomes. Supervised physical activity might have a positive impact on quality of life, acupuncture on headache frequency, intensity, quality of life and the use of attack-medicine. Patient education might improve self-rated health and quality of life and increase the number of well-informed patients.

CONCLUSION

Based on observed effects, the lack of serious adverse events, and patients' preferences, we make weak recommendations for considering the investigated interventions as a supplement to standard treatment.Protocol registration: Prospero CRD42020220132.

Role of memantine in the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of memantine for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a prevalent chronic disease with significant costs to the health care system. Although various prophylactic treatment options are available, these medications have limitations based on efficacy, potential side effects, and patient preference. Memantine is an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist used in dementia treatment that may have potential benefit for migraine prophylaxis.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to identify relevant published studies through December 2020 using the search terms: migraine disorders, migraine, headache disorders, or headache and memantine. Studies selected for the systematic review included prospective, interventional designs and evaluated memantine for prophylaxis of migraine. Animal studies, case reports, abstracts, review articles, protocols without results, and studies not written in English were excluded. Data were extracted using a standardized systematic process and included author, publication date, study design, sample size, patient characteristics, treatment regimen, clinical efficacy outcomes, and adverse drug effects.

RESULTS

Four articles were identified for inclusion representing two prospective open-label studies and two randomized, double-blind trials, evaluating 183 patients on memantine overall. A reduction in number of migraine days and headache severity were shown in all four studies in the participants treated with memantine. The most common adverse effects included somnolence, sedation, and nausea, none of which were severe.

CONCLUSION

The studies in this review establish that memantine has the potential for use as a treatment option for episodic migraine. Additional long-term studies using an active comparator would be useful to further elucidate its role.

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The efficacy and safety of antiepileptics in the prophylaxis of pediatric migraine: the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Migraine is the most common primary headache among children and adolescents. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiepileptic drugs in the prevention of pediatric migraine.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched for eligible published RCTs from January 1970 to June 2020. Migraine frequency and ≥50% response rate were measured as the efficacy outcomes. We used "Risk of Bias" tool for quality assessment and RevMan5.3 software for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Four articles containing 7 RCTs with 794 participants compared the efficacy of AEDs with placebo. Four RCTs assessed topiramate vs. placebo and 3 RCTs evaluated divalproex sodium extended-release (DVPX ER) vs. placebo. The results demonstrated that children receiving antiepileptic drugs had a significant advantage in remitting the mean monthly migraine days compared to those who received placebo, with an MD of -0.48 (n=930, 95% CI: -0.84 to -0.12, Z=2.60, P=0.009). Topiramate significantly reduced monthly migraine days (MD =-0.70, n=489, 95% CI: -1.16 to -0.25, Z=3.01, P=0.003) but failed to improve the ≥50% response rate (MD =-1.50, n=489, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.22, Z=1.05, P=0.30). DVPX ER did not significantly reduce monthly headache frequency (n=441, 95% CI: -0.70 to 0.47, Z=0.38, P=0.70) or improve the ≥50% response rate (n=441, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.25, Z=0.82, P=0.41) compared with placebo. Topiramate and DVPX ER were related to higher rates of side effects and adverse reactions.

DISCUSSION

Topiramate can reduce monthly headache days in children and adolescents with migraine. However, it failed to improve the ≥50% response rate. DVPX ER showed no difference from placebo in the prophylactic treatment pediatric migraine. Side effects seemed to be more frequent in topiramate and DVPX ER treated children but generally well-tolerated.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Relevant factors for neurologists to define effectiveness of migraine preventive drugs and take decisions on treatment. My-LIFE European Delphi survey

Background

Clinical guidelines agree that preventive treatment should be considered in patients with uncontrolled migraine despite acute medications or patients with ≥4 migraine days per month. However, the criteria to define the effectiveness of treatment and the factors that inform the decision to (dis)continue it are not clearly defined in clinical practice.

Methods

Overall, 148 healthcare practitioners from five European countries completed a two‐wave questionnaire. The Steering Committee defined a simulated set of 108 migraine patient profiles based on the combination of five factors (frequency of the attacks, intensity of the attacks, use of acute migraine medications, patient perception and presence/absence of tolerable side effects). These profiles were used in a Delphi survey among European neurologists to identify the criteria that should be used to decide treatment response and continuation using a conjoint analysis approach.

Results

Consensus was reached for 82/108 (76%) of profiles regarding treatment response, and for 86/108 (80%) regarding treatment continuation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that a ≥50% reduction in the use of acute migraine medications and positive patient's perception of treatment were the most important factors that lead to the decision of continuing (combined factors, OR = 18.3, 95% CI 13.4–25.05).

Conclusions

This survey identifies two relevant outcome measures: one objective (use of acute migraine treatment medications) and one subjective (positive patient perception) that guide the clinician decision to continue preventive treatment in migraine patients.

Significance

In clinical practice, criteria to define the effectiveness of migraine preventive treatment and factors that guide treatment stop or continuation are not clearly defined. In this simulated clinical setting study, a reduction in the use of acute migraine medications was the factor associated with preventive treatment effectiveness definition. This study also revealed that factors strongly associated with the decision of treatment continuation in real life are the acute migraine medications use and a positive patient's perception of treatment effectiveness.

Patent foramen ovale closure in stroke patients with migraine in the CLOSE trial. The CLOSE-MIG study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The efficacy of patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to reduce the frequency of migraine attacks remains controversial.

METHODS

This was a planned sub-study in migraine patients enrolled in a randomized, clinical trial designed to assess the superiority of PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy over antiplatelet therapy alone to prevent stroke recurrence in patients younger than 60 years with a PFO-associated cryptogenic ischaemic stroke. The main outcome was the mean annual number of migraine attacks in migraine patients with aura and in those without aura, as recorded at each follow-up visit by study neurologists.

RESULTS

Of 473 patients randomized to PFO closure or antiplatelet therapy, 145 (mean age 41.9 years; women 58.6%) had migraine (75 with aura and 70 without aura). Sixty-seven patients were randomized to PFO closure and 78 to antiplatelet therapy. During a mean follow-up of about 5 years, there were no differences between antiplatelet-only and PFO closure groups in the mean annual number of migraine attacks, both in migraine patients with aura (9.2 [11.9] vs. 12.0 [19.1], p = 0.81) and in those without aura (12.1 [16.1] vs. 11.8 [18.4], p > 0.999). There were no differences between treatment groups regarding cessation of migraine attacks, migraine-related disability at 2 years and use of migraine-preventive drugs during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In young and middle-aged adults with PFO-associated cryptogenic stroke and migraine, PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the mean annual number of migraine attacks compared to antiplatelet therapy alone, in migraine patients both with and without aura.

Outcomes measures in idiopathic intracranial hypertension

Introduction: Idiopathic intracranial hypertension is a condition characterized by raised intracranial pressure, papilledema, and normal neuroimaging (aside from radiological signs of raised intracranial pressure). Symptoms of idiopathic intracranial hypertension include chronic headaches and for some, visual loss. New treatments are unmet clinical needs.Areas covered: The aim of this review is to present the evidence base and considered opinion on outcome measures to determine successful management of idiopathic intracranial hypertension.Expert opinion: Less invasive measures of disease activity such as optical coherence tomography will continue to grow in this field, both as a measure of papilledema, and potentially as a surrogate for intracranial pressure and visual function. As a highly disabling aspect of the disease is headache, treatment outcomes for headache morbidity need to be appropriately chosen and standardized to allow comparison between trials.

Eptinezumab for the treatment of migraine

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is one of the most common illnesses in the world, with severe economical and subjective implications. Nowadays specific and nonspecific drugs are used for migraine chronic therapy, but a portion of patients have no benefit from these administrations. CGRP receptor antagonists are a good preventive treatment for episodic and chronic migraine.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews both preclinical and clinical studies on eptinezumab as a potential preventive therapy for migraine, as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features. Thus, it summarizes safety and tolerability data based on human studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Eptinezumab had good results in several trials, making this molecule a promising migraine preventive drug. Although preclinical and clinical studies showed a significant efficacy, there are no data on the use of Eptinezumab during pregnancy or breastfeeding. There are still some knowledge limits about its pharmacokinetics and metabolism. This is a matter of concern that should be addressed in future studies.

Is Allodynia a Determinant Factor in the Effectiveness of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in the Prophylaxis of Migraine?

OBJECTIVES

Allodynia, the clinical marker of central sensitization, affects even simple daily living activities and increases the tendency for migraine to be more resistant to treatment and have a chronic course. Migraine that impairs quality of life can often be treated with variable pharmaceutical agents, but with various side effects. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potential alternative treatment for migraine prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-seven patients diagnosed with migraine (48 with allodynia and 29 without allodynia) were included in the study. Randomly, 41 of the 77 patients received sham stimulation and 36 patients underwent three sessions of anodal left primary motor cortex stimulation for 2 mA, 20 min. Migraine attack characteristics (frequency, severity, and duration) and analgesic drug use were followed with headache diaries for one month after the stimulation.

RESULTS

After tDCS, migraine attack frequency (p = 0.021), the number of headache days (p = 0.005), duration of attacks (p = 0.008), and symptomatic analgesic drug use (p = 0.007) decreased in patients receiving active tDCS, compared to the sham group. The therapeutic gain of tDCS was calculated as 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22-60%) for headache days and 76% (95% CI: 55-86) for headache duration. Response to tDCS treatment was higher in patients without allodynia (60% vs. 24%; p = 0.028) and allodynia came out as an independent predictor of response to tDCS with logistic regression analysis. Side effects were rare and similar to the sham group.

CONCLUSIONS

tDCS is a safe, efficacious, and fast method for migraine prophylaxis. However, the administration of tDCS before allodynia occurs, that is, before central sensitization develops, will provide increased responsiveness to the treatment.

SIGNIFICANCE

tDCS is more effective before the development of allodynia, but it also improves the quality of life even after the development of allodynia.

Guidelines of the International Headache Society for clinical trials with neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine

BACKGROUND

Although the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration have cleared several devices that use neuromodulation to provide clinical benefits in the acute or preventive treatment of migraine, the Clinical Trials Committee of the International Headache Society has not developed guidelines specifically for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices. In recognition of the distinct needs and challenges associated with their assessment in controlled trials, the Committee provides these recommendations for optimizing the design and conduct of controlled trials of neuromodulation devices for the acute and/or preventive treatment of migraine.

METHODS

An international group of headache scientists and clinicians with expertise in neuromodulation evaluated clinical trials involving neuromodulation devices that have been published since 2000. The Clinical Trials Committee incorporated findings from this expert analysis into a new guideline for clinical trials of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of migraine.

RESULTS

Key terms were defined and recommendations provided relative to the assessment of neuromodulation devices for acute treatment in adults, preventive treatment in adults, and acute and preventive treatment in children and adolescents. Ethical and administrative responsibilities were outlined, and a bibliography of previous research involving neuromodulation devices was created.

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of these recommendations will improve the quality of evidence regarding this important area in migraine treatment.

Erenumab prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and not just migraine days: Post-hoc analyses of a phase III study

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of erenumab on monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks, and attack duration in patients with episodic migraine to investigate whether erenumab actually prevents the occurrence of migraine attacks and/or shortens them.

METHODS

We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the data from the STRIVE study, in 955 patients with episodic migraine. Relative changes from baseline to mean over months 4, 5 and 6 of the double-blind treatment phase in monthly migraine days, monthly migraine attacks and mean migraine attack duration were assessed.

RESULTS

Erenumab reduced monthly migraine days and monthly migraine attacks compared with placebo in a similar way. Erenumab had only a minor impact on shortening the duration of migraine attacks.

CONCLUSION

These post-hoc analyses demonstrate that the decrease in monthly migraine days by erenumab is mainly driven by a reduction in the frequency of monthly migraine attacks and to a much lesser extent by shortening the duration of migraine attacks.Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02456740).

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with migraine who did not benefit from commonly prescribed preventive treatments

Background

Galcanezumab is a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody (mAb) indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine. While galcanezumab has demonstrated efficacy in patients who did not respond to prior preventive medications in general, its efficacy in patients who did not benefit from individual, commonly prescribed preventive treatments due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability remains unknown.

Methods

CONQUER was a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study that enrolled patients with episodic or chronic migraine who had 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication category failures in the past 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive placebo (N = 230) or galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240 mg loading dose; N = 232). Post hoc analyses were conducted to determine the efficacy of galcanezumab in patients who had not benefited from six of the most commonly prescribed migraine preventive medications. The mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days and ≥ 50 % response rates were assessed over months 1–3. Improvement in Migraine-Specific Questionnaire Role Function-Restrictive (MSQ-RFR) scores were assessed at month 3. The endpoints were estimated via mixed model with repeated measures.

Results

The most common treatment failures due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability, which at least 20 % of patients reported trying without benefit, included topiramate, amitriptyline, propranolol, valproate or divalproex, onabotulinum toxin A, and metoprolol. Patients who had not previously benefited from these treatments had a greater mean reduction in monthly migraine headache days across months 1–3 in the galcanezumab group compared to placebo (all p < 0.01). More patients treated with galcanezumab experienced a ≥ 50 % reduction from baseline in monthly migraine headache days across months 1–3 compared to placebo (all p < 0.05). Galcanezumab-treated patients had a greater improvement in mean MSQ-RFR scores at month 3 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In this population, galcanezumab was effective in reducing monthly migraine headache days, improving response rates, and enhancing quality of life in patients who had not previously benefited from topiramate, amitriptyline, propranolol, valproate or divalproex, onabotulinum toxin A, and/or metoprolol due to inadequate efficacy or safety/tolerability.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03559257 (CONQUER).

Early onset of effect following galcanezumab treatment in patients with previous preventive medication failures

Background

Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is indicated for the preventive treatment of migraine. Galcanezumab demonstrated early onset of effect in patients with migraine but it is unknown whether the same holds true for patients who have not benefited from multiple prior migraine preventives.

Methods

Patients with episodic or chronic migraine from a 3-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3b study (CONQUER) who had 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication category failures in the past 10 years were randomized 1:1 to placebo (N = 230) or galcanezumab 120 mg/month (240 mg loading dose; N = 232). In this post-hoc analysis, change from baseline in number of monthly and weekly migraine headache days was assessed. Monthly onset of effect was the earliest month at which significant improvement with galcanezumab compared to placebo was achieved and maintained at all subsequent months. Weekly onset was the initial week at which statistical separation was achieved and maintained at all subsequent weeks during that month. Proportion of patients with migraine headache days in the first week of treatment, and patients achieving ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response by month and week were also assessed.

Results

Galcanezumab-treated patients had a significantly greater reduction in monthly migraine headache days starting at month 1, which remained significant for all subsequent months compared to placebo (all p ≤ 0.0001, month 1 mean change from baseline: placebo − 0.7; galcanezumab − 4.0). Weekly migraine headache days was significantly reduced in galcanezumab-treated patients starting at week 1 and continued for each subsequent week of month 1 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01, week 1 mean change from baseline: placebo − 0.2; galcanezumab − 1.1). A significantly smaller percentage of patients had a migraine headache on the first day after galcanezumab treatment compared to placebo (28.4% vs 39.2%) and at each subsequent day during week 1 (all p < 0.05). A greater proportion of galcanezumab-treated patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and 100% response at months 1–3 (all p < 0.05) and at weeks 1–4 of month 1 compared to placebo (all p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Galcanezumab showed early onset of effect beginning the day after treatment initiation in patients who had not previously benefited from migraine preventive treatments.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03559257. Registered 18 June 2018.