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

[Consensus statement of the migraine and headache societies (DMKG, ÖKSG, and SKG) on the duration of pharmacological migraine prophylaxis]

Migraine is the most common neurological disorder and can be associated with a high degree of disability. In addition to non-pharmacological approaches to reduce migraine frequency, pharmacological migraine preventatives are available. Evidence-based guidelines from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG), and German Society for Neurology (DGN), Austrian Headache Society (ÖKSG), and Swiss Headache Society (SKG) are available for indication and application. For therapy-relevant questions such as the duration of a pharmacological migraine prevention, no conclusions can be drawn from currently available study data. The aim of this review is to present a therapy consensus statement that integrates the current data situation and, where data are lacking, expert opinions. The resulting current recommendations on the duration of therapy for pharmacological migraine prophylaxis are shown here.

Headache: Treatment update

Primary headache disorders in particular migraine are one of the most common causes of disability worldwide. Given the high burden of migraine in terms of disability, there has been an effort to develop migraine specific therapies that has led to the availability of new drugs including 5HT_1F receptor agonists-ditans (lasmiditan), small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists-gepants: (ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant) and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab and eptinezumab). However, some of these treatments incur a high cost and may not be a feasible option for most patients in resource limited settings. Lasmiditan and the gepants are a good option for patients with moderate-severe migraine attacks who cannot use triptans due variously to poor tolerability, or cardio- or cerebrovascular disease. For practical purposes, the new anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are best reserved for patients who have failed to have efficacy or had intolerable side effects from multiple traditional oral preventives.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Supplementary Information

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

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies and Antagonists in Migraine: Current Evidence and Rationale

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a 37 amino-acid neuropeptide found mostly in peptidergic sensory C-fibers, has been suggested to be implicated in the pathogenesis of migraine, which is one of the most common neurological disorders seen in medical practice, affecting almost 16% of the US population. While previously thought to be a vascular condition, migraine attacks are the result of neurogenic inflammation and peripheral/central sensitization through dysfunctional activation of the trigeminovascular system. To date, two classes of therapeutic agents have been developed to interrupt the function of CGRP: CGRP-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and small-molecule antagonists (gepants). There are currently four CGRP-targeted mAbs and three gepants that are US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for the treatment of migraine. Multiple phase II and III studies have established the efficacies and tolerability of these treatments. Previously, we reviewed the fundamental role of CGRP in migraine pathogenesis. Here, we discuss in depth the clinical evidence (randomized controlled trials and real-world studies), safety, and tolerability of CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants for treating migraine.

It is time anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies be considered first-line prophylaxis for migraine

The result of more than thirty years of research, anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are currently the state of the art for migraine preventive therapy. Their efficacy and safety, supported by an already large and growing body of evidence, are added by many other advantages: an early onset of action, favorable posology, negligible pharmacological interaction, and a broad-reaching efficacy in many challenging clinical contexts. When compared to standard prophylactics, these novel medications seem at least as efficacious, clearly more tolerable and, consequently, with a superior adherence profile. Furthermore, recently published analyses indicate that they are cost-effective, especially among those with chronic migraine. Yet, current guidelines endorse their use only after multiple other preventives have failed or have been deemed not tolerable. Although this recommendation may have been sensible at first, the now available data strongly point that time has come for anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies to be acknowledged as first-line treatments for migraine patients with severe disability. For these individuals, delaying treatment until several other alternatives have failed incurs in significant losses, both economically and to many relevant aspects of their lives.

Migraine Outcome Should Not Be Used to Determine Diagnosis, Severity, and Therapy: Moving Towards a Multiparametric Definition of Chronicity

Chronic migraine (CM) diagnosis is nowadays based on the threshold of 15 headache days/month for three consecutive months, of which at least eight have migraine headache features. In recent years, proposals for reducing the threshold to 8 days/month have been proposed. The sole frequency parameter, however, is partial considering the variability in frequency, pain severity, associated symptoms, such as nausea, osmophobia, and photophobia, and presence of aura, but also the variable response to treatment and the association with several comorbidities. Therefore, in our opinion, a multiparameter perspective has to be taken into account that considers the underlying pathophysiology, in particular the presence of tension-type-like pain, cutaneous allodynia, and reduced pain threshold. A paradigm change in the definition of chronic migraine moves far beyond the mere 8 vs. 15 days/month, but has ethical and practical implications for treatment: should patients be treated with the most effective prophylactic drugs, i.e., monoclonal antibodies (MABs), if they enter into a new definition of CM? How should clinicians deal with treatment escalation towards MABs? What is the role of associated conditions, response to treatments, lifestyle issues, and psychological factors? And, finally, which endpoint should we use to define effectiveness? Is improvement in headache frequency enough, or should we move towards disability, quality of life, or workplace productivity?

[CGRP antibodies in migraine prophylaxis : The new standard in migraine treatment?]

Migraine is associated with a high individual level of suffering. Therefore, an effective preventive treatment is highly important. The spectrum of classical prophylactic drugs has now been expanded to include monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and its receptor. These antibodies have shown reliable efficacy compared to placebo and a rapid onset of action with a low rate of side effects and negligible interactions in pivotal studies. Recently, the efficacy of the antibody was shown in many studies even on drug-refractory migraine and migraine associated with medication overuse. Comprehensive head to head comparisons with previously established drugs and among the antibodies are not yet available; however, initial studies suggest better tolerability and efficacy compared to conventional drugs and other antibodies. The role of antibodies in established treatment cascades still needs to be clarified.

Erenumab for Migraine Prevention in a 1-Year Compassionate Use Program: Efficacy, Tolerability, and Differences Between Clinical Phenotypes

During a 1-year compassionate use program, 156 patients with migraine self-administered a monthly dose of erenumab 140 mg with a subcutaneous autoinjector. Main inclusion criteria were: ≥ 4 migraine days/month and ≥two prior prophylactic treatment failures. The patients covered the migraine severity spectrum from episodic migraine (EM) (n = 80) to chronic migraine (CM) (n = 76). During the 3rd month of treatment, monthly headache days decreased by 45.7% in EM and 35.5% in CM. The 50% responder rate for reduction in monthly headache days was significantly higher in EM (55%) than in CM (43%) (p = 0.05). In both the migraine subgroups, the clinical improvement vs. baseline was already significant during the 1st month of treatment (p < 0.001). There were also significant reductions in mean headache severity, duration, and monthly days with acute drug intake. The 30% responder rate at 3 months was 60% in CM and 54.1% of patients reversed from CM to EM. The therapeutic effect was maintained at 12 months when 50% responder rates, considering discontinuation for lack of efficacy or adverse effects as 0% response, still were 51% in EM and 41% in CM. A total of 10 patients with EM (12.5%) and 23 patients with CM (30.3%) had discontinued treatment, considering the treatment as ineffective. At 3 months, 48% of patients reported non-serious adverse events among which the most frequent was constipation (20.5%); corresponding figures at 12 months were 30 and 15%. Discontinuation due to an adverse effect for the entire 12 month period was rare (3.8%). The lower efficacy in CM than in EM was mainly due to a very low 50% responder rate in patients with CM with continuous pain (13%) as compared to CM with pain-free periods (58%) (p < 0.001). Similarly, the 50% responder rate was lower in patients with ≥two prior prophylactic treatment failures (40.5%) compared to those with two failures (70%) (p < 0.05). There was no significant efficacy difference between low (4-7 migraine days/month, n = 22) and high frequency (8-14 days, n = 59) EM nor between patients with CM with (n = 50) or without (n = 26) acute medication overuse. Erenumab had no effect on the frequency of auras. Taken together, erenumab 140 mg monthly was highly effective for migraine prophylaxis over the whole severity spectrum of the disease, except in patients with continuous headaches. Its effect is significant after the first injection, quasi-maximal after the second injection, and does not wear off after 12 months. The most frequent adverse effect was constipation. These results are compared to those published for erenumab in the pivotal randomized placebo-controlled trials and to those reported in several recent real-world studies.