Galcanezumab in chronic migraine: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled REGAIN study

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP (R): non-responders and switchers: real world data from an austrian case series

OBJECTIVE

Assessement of the responder and non-responder rate to consecutive monoclonal CGRP-antibody (CGRP-mAb) treatment, the presence of side effects, analysis of predictors of response and loss-of-effectiveness evaluation over time.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis including 171 patients with episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM), who received one, two or three different CGRP-mAbs. Non-response was defined as ≤ 50% reduction of monthly migraine days (MMDs) in EM and ≤ 30% reduction of MMDs in CM after 3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

123 (71.9%) responded to the first mAb. Side effects led to treatment discontinuation in 9 (5.3%) patients. Of the 26 patients who did not respond to the first mAb or experienced a loss of efficacy over time, 11 (42.3%) responded to the second and two (28.6%) of 7 to the third monoclonal antibody. Poor response to therapy was associated with a higher monthly migraine frequency (p = 0.028), a higher number of prior preventive migraine therapies (p = 0.011) and medication overuse (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Our findings support mAb-class switch in non-responders or in patients experiencing a loss of effectiveness. The use of a third CGRP-mAb could be beneficial for some patients.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Migraine: from pathophysiology to treatment

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Preventive CGRP-targeted therapies for chronic migraine with and without medication-overuse headache

Background:

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) targeted therapies are an important breakthrough in migraine prevention. Randomized clinical trials, post-hoc analyses, and phase IV studies have demonstrated their efficacy and safety in chronic migraine patients, including those with concomitant medication-overuse and medication-overuse headache. Real world evidence studies support these findings and provide realistic endpoints for estimation of effect.

Methods and results

We have performed a narrative review including results from double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials and real-world evidence studies regarding efficacy of the CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies and CGRP-receptor antagonists (gepants) in patients with chronic migraine with concomitant medication overuse (headache). We have included patient profiles and main efficacy endpoints (monthly migraine days, monthly headache days, monthly acute medication days and percentage responder rates).

Conclusion

The results of this review show that CGRP monoclonal antibodies are effective in chronic migraine patients, also in those with medication overuse (headache). At the time of this review, atogepant clinical trials in chronic migraine have not been communicated. Direct comparative studies are needed for comparison with other treatment options.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia identifies responders to prophylactic treatment of chronic and episodic migraine patients with galcanezumab: A prospective quantitative sensory testing study (NCT04271202)

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a complex neurological disorder involving generalized abnormalities in processing sensory information. Adopting evidence that central sensitization imposes major hurdles in the treatment of migraine, we hypothesized that it is the non-ictal (rather than ictal) allodynia that may determine the outcome of migraine prevention with peripherally-acting drugs.

METHODS

To test this hypothesis, we used Quantitative Sensory Testing to determine whether it is possible to identify a patient's response to prophylactic treatment with galcanezumab based on presence/absence of cephalic and/or extracephalic allodynia during the pre-treatment non-ictal phase of migraine.

RESULTS

Using strict criteria for allodynia (heat 32-40°C, cold 32-20°C, mechanical <60 g), we report that (a) the incidence of pre-treatment non-ictal cephalic allodynia was 21% in the 24 responders (>50% decrease in monthly migraine days) and 85% in the 19 non-responders; (b) the incidence of non-ictal extracephalic allodynia distinguishes responders from non-responders less accurately; and that (c) the incidence of non-ictal cephalic allodynia was similar in the chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically, the findings suggest that presence/absence of non-ictal allodynia can be used to identify galcanezumab responders with nearly 80% accuracy and galcanezumab non-responders with nearly 85% accuracy. Mechanistically, the presence of non-ictal allodynia (reflecting a state of activity-independent central sensitization) in both chronic migraine and high-frequency episodic migraine patients raises the possibility that the state of non-ictal allodynia may be attributed to physiological properties of central trigeminovascular neurons that are due to the genetic load of the individual patient rather than their migraine frequency.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical evaluation of super-responders vs. non-responders to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies: a real-world experience

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials and real-world studies revealed a spectrum of response to CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in migraine prophylaxis, ranging from no effect at all to total migraine freedom. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical characteristics between super-responders (SR) and non-responders (NR) to CGRP(-receptor) mAbs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study at the Headache Center, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. The definition of super-response was a ≥ 75% reduction in monthly headache days (MHD) in the third month after treatment initiation compared to the month prior to treatment begin (baseline). Non-response was defined as ≤ 25% reduction in MHD after three months of treatment with a CGRP-receptor mAb and subsequent three months of treatment with CGRP mAb, or vice versa. We collected demographic data, migraine disease characteristics, migraine symptoms during the attacks in both study groups (SR/NR) as well as the general medical history. SR and NR were compared using Chi-square test for categorical variables, and t-test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Between November 2018 and June 2022, n = 260 patients with migraine received preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) mAbs and provided complete headache documentation for the baseline phase and the third treatment month. Among those, we identified n = 29 SR (11%) and n = 26 NR (10%). SR reported more often especially vomiting (SR n = 12/25, 48% vs. NR n = 4/22, 18%; p = 0.031) and typical migraine characteristics such as unilateral localization, pulsating character, photophobia and nausea. A subjective good response to triptans was significantly higher in SR (n = 26/29, 90%) than in NR (n = 15/25, 60%, p = 0.010). NR suffered more frequently from chronic migraine (NR n = 24/26, 92% vs. SR n = 15/29, 52%; p = 0.001), medication overuse headache (NR n = 14/24, 58% versus SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.024), and concomitant depression (NR n = 17/26, 65% vs. SR n = 8/29, 28%; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Several clinical parameters differ between SR and NR to prophylactic CGRP(-R) mAbs. A thorough clinical evaluation prior to treatment initiation might help to achieve a more personalized management in patients with migraine.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

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

New migraine prophylactic drugs: Current evidence and practical suggestions for non-responders to prior therapy

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs) and small-molecule CGRP receptor antagonists (gepants) are new mechanism-based prophylactic drugs developed to address the unmet needs of pre-existing migraine prophylactic medications. However, several uncertainties remain in their real-world applications.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of the literature on the use of CGRP-targeting novel therapeutics in specific situations, including non-responders to prior therapy, combination therapy, switching, and treatment termination. In the case of lack of available literature, we made suggestions based on clinical reasoning.

RESULTS

High-quality evidence supports the use of all available anti-CGRP(-R) mAbs (erenumab, galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and eptinezumab) in non-responders to prior therapy. There is insufficient evidence to support or reject the efficacy of combining CGRP(-R) mAbs or gepants with oral migraine prophylactic agents or botulinum toxin A. Switching from one CGRP(-R) mAb to another might benefit a fraction of patients. Currently, treatment termination depends on reimbursement policies, and the optimal mode of termination is discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

New prophylactic drugs that target the CGRP pathway are promising treatment options for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. Individualized approaches using a combination of new substances with oral prophylactic drugs or botulinum toxin A, switching between new drugs, and adjusting treatment duration could enhance excellence in practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Revisiting Migraine: The Evolving Pathophysiology and the Expanding Management Armamentarium

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

Intensive Mindfulness Meditation Reduces Frequency and Burden of Migraine: An Unblinded Single-Arm Trial

Objectives

Preventing migraine headaches and improving the quality of life for patients with migraine remains a challenge. We hypothesized intensive meditation training would reduce the disease burden of migraine.

Method

An unblinded trial was analyzed as a single cohort exposed to a silent 10-day Vipassana meditation retreat that included 100 hr of sitting meditation. Participants with chronic or episodic migraine were enrolled and followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was a change in mean monthly migraine days at 12 months from baseline. Secondary outcomes included headache frequency and intensity, acute medication use, work days missed, home meditation, sleep quality, general health, quality of life, migraine impact, positive and negative affect, perceived stress, mindfulness, and pain catastrophizing.

Results

Three hundred people were screened and 58 (19%) agreed to participate and enrolled in the intensive meditation training. Forty-six participants with chronic migraine (≥ 15 headaches/month of which ≥ 8 were migraines) and 12 with episodic migraine (< 15 and ≥ 4 migraines/month) attended and 45 (78%) completed the retreat. At 12 months, the average migraine frequency was reduced by 2.7 days (from 16.6 at baseline) per 28 days (95%CI - 4.3, - 1.3) and headaches by 3.4 (20.1 at baseline) per 28 days (- 4.9, - 1.9). Fifty percent responder rate was 29% for migraine. Acute medication use dropped by an average of 2.2 days (- 3.9, - 0.5) per 28 days, and participants reported 2.3 fewer days (- 4.0, - 0.5) on which they reduced their activity due to migraines. The most striking and promising effects were in several secondary outcomes, including migraine-specific quality of life, pain catastrophizing, and perceived stress. The significant improvements observed immediately following the intervention were sustained at 12 months follow-up.

Conclusions

Training in Vipassana meditation via a 10-day retreat may reduce the frequency and burden of migraine.

Preregistration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00663585.

Actual Telemedicine Needs of Japanese Patients with Neurological Disorders in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many social activities have moved online using applications for digital devices (e.g. computers, smartphones). We investigated the needs of telemedicine and trends in medical status and social care situations of Japanese patients with neurological disorders in order to estimate their affinity for an online telemedicine application. Methods We designed an original questionnaire for the present study that asked participants what problems they had with hospital visits, how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their lives, and whether or not they would like to receive telemedicine. Patients The present study included volunteer caregivers, participants with Parkinson's disease (PD), epilepsy, stroke, dementia, immune-mediated neurological disease (IMMD), spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), headache, myopathy, and other neurological diseases from Okayama University Hospital. Results A total of 29.6% of patients wanted to use telemedicine. Patients with headaches (60.0%) and epilepsy (38.1%) were more likely to want to use telemedicine than patients with PD (17.8%) or stroke (19.0%). Almost 90% of patients had access to a digital device, and there was no association between favoring telemedicine, ownership of a digital device, hospital visiting time, or waiting time at the hospital, although age was associated with motivation to telemedicine use (52.6 vs. 62.2 years old, p<0.001). Conclusion We can contribute to the management of the COVID-19 pandemic and the medical economy by promoting telemedicine, especially for young patients with headaches or epilepsy.

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

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

Effect of switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand antibody treatment in migraine: A real-world cohort study

Background

Therapeutic options for migraine prevention in non-responders to monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) and its receptor are often limited. Real-world data have shown that non-responders to the CGRP-receptor mAb erenumab may benefit from switching to a CGRP ligand mAb. However, it remains unclear whether, vice versa, erenumab is effective in non-responders to CGRP ligand mAbs. In this study, we aim to assess the efficacy of erenumab in patients who have previously failed a CGRP ligand mAb.

Methods

This monocentric retrospective cohort study included patients with episodic or chronic migraine in whom a non-response (< 30% reduction of monthly headache days during month 3 of treatment compared to baseline) to the CGRP ligand mAbs galcanezumab or fremanezumab led to a switch to erenumab, and who had received at least 3 administrations of erenumab. Monthly headache days were retrieved from headache diaries to assess the ≥30% responder rates and the absolute reduction of monthly headache days at 3 and 6 months of treatment with erenumab in this cohort.

Results

From May 2019 to July 2022, we identified 20 patients who completed 3 months of treatment with erenumab after non-response to a CGRP ligand mAb. Fourteen patients continued treatment for ≥6 months. The ≥30% responder rate was 35% at 3 months, and 45% at 6 months of treatment with erenumab, respectively. Monthly headache days were reduced from 18.6 ± 5.9 during baseline by 4.1 ± 3.1 days during month 3, and by 7.0 ± 4.8 days during month 6 compared to the month before treatment with erenumab (p < 0.001, respectively). Responders and non-responders to erenumab did not differ with respect to demographic or headache characteristics.

Conclusion

Switching to erenumab in non-responders to a CGRP ligand mAb might be beneficial in a subgroup of resistant patients, with increasing responder rates after 6 months of treatment. Larger prospective studies should aim to predict which subgroup of patients benefit from a switch.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Novel Migraine Treatments: A Review

Aims: To present a review of the mechanisms of action, available clinical data, and safety profiles of novel migraine therapeutics to inform practice. Methods: PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (24 publications), review articles (15 publications), and other pertinent literature (16 publications) discussing the novel migraine therapeutics available between the years 2010 and 2021. All publications were reviewed to assess the mechanism of action, relevant clinical data, and side effect profile for each novel treatment. Therapeutic gain was also recorded in studies that included a placebo arm. Results: A total of 55 studies were included in the final analysis. In the preventive treatment of migraine, novel medications target calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and fall into either the monoclonal anti-CGRP or gepant class. For the acute treatment of migraine, novel medications fall into either the ditan or gepant class. Several medical devices have been developed for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Conclusion: Novel therapeutics are available for both the prevention and acute treatment of migraine headaches. These new medications and neuromodulatory devices appear overall to be safe and effective in the management of migraine headaches.

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

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

Chronic migraine and medication overuse

Though clearly described as far back as the 17th century, chronic migraine has defied precise categorization and has continued to develop as an important diagnostic concept with significant societal impact. Worldwide prevalence is estimated to be between 1% and 3%, and these patients form a dynamic group cycling between chronic and episodic migraine. Theories of pathogenesis are developing supported by recent imaging and other findings. Of the many determinants of progression to chronic migraine, overuse of acute abortive headache medications may be one of the most important modifiable factors. Treatment strategies, in addition to educational measures, have included various preventive migraine medications such as topiramate, valproate, and onabotulinumtoxinA. CGRP monoclonal antibodies are efficacious for the management of chronic migraine both with and without medication overuse.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Real-world experience of OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment in female patients with chronic migraine: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) causes great disability and affects an individual's quality of life. OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBT-A, Botox®) was the first prophylactic treatment specifically indicated for CM. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences of women with CM treated with OBT-A.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study design is a qualitative descriptive study. A purposeful sampling of 30 women (mean age, 42.7; standard deviation, 10.6) who had received at least two administrations of OBT-A for CM (PREEMPT protocol) was performed. Data collection included in-depth interviews and researchers' field notes. A thematic analysis was carried out according to qualitative research guidelines.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified: (a) A long way to go before Botox®, (b) First time hearing about the treatment and its expectations, (c) The administration of Botox®, (d) Treatment effects, and (e) Follow-up. Patients described a long history of treatment failures prior to the start of OBT-A treatment. Information about this migraine treatment came from the neurologist; following the information, patients had high expectations, including unrealistic expectations regarding the onset and duration of effect. They acknowledged fear of the injections and some discomfort due to the procedure. With treatment, participants reported better migraine control and an improvement in their quality of life. Follow-up had some barriers, such as delayed appointments for subsequent doses, but also strengths, such as effectiveness and few side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative research offers insight into how patients with CM experience treatment with OBT-A. Our results highlight some relevant aspects that should be considered when providing OBT-A treatment.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Advances in Antibody-Based Therapeutics for Cerebral Ischemia

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

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.

Real-World Evaluation of the Tolerability to Onabotulinum Toxin A: The RETO Study

Onabotulinumtoxin A (onabotA) has shown efficacy in chronic migraine (CM), with good tolerability and a low rate of adverse effects, most of them not severe. The aim of this study is to evaluate tolerability and adverse effects of onabotA in clinical practice and to analyze if there is a relationship between tolerability to treatment administration, adverse effects' (AEs) occurrence and clinical response. We included patients with CM that received treatment with onabotA for the first time. Tolerability to treatment was evaluated by a 0-10 numeric rating scale (0: worst possible, 10: optimal tolerability). We assessed the presence of AEs by using a standardized questionnaire. Treatment response was based on the 50 and 75% responder rate between weeks 20 and 24, compared with the baseline, according to headache diaries. We analyzed whether the tolerability was associated with a higher frequency of AEs or a higher probability of clinical response. We included 105 patients, 87.7% female, with an age of 43.9 ± 10.7 years. Mean tolerability was 7.8/10 and 7.2/10 in the first and second onabotA administration, respectively. AEs were reported by (first-second) 71.4-68.6% patients. The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 56.3%. There was no association between tolerability and AEs' occurrence or clinical response.

What is new in migraine management in children and young people?

For this narrative review, we found recent publications on the use and effectiveness of old therapies including nutraceuticals, such as riboflavin, vitamin D, magnesium, melatonin and talking therapies. Recent large trials of established conventional pharmaceuticals such as propranolol, pizotifen, topiramate and amitriptyline for childhood migraine have failed, but the use of a quasi-placebo in future trials could help. We reviewed the evidence for angiotensin antagonists including candesartan in adults, but found a lack of evidence for their use in children. There have been new developments in pharmaceuticals recently, including a more selective 5-HT1F agonist, lasmiditan, an effective acute treatment with no vasoconstrictor activity in adults, currently being tested in children. Also, a number of new calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antibodies and antagonists, with proven efficacy in acute treatment and/or prevention of migraine in adults, are undergoing trials in children. Peripheral nerve blocks and botulinum toxin are gaining popularity in adult practice, but we really need more good quality evidence for their effectiveness in children. Finally, electroceuticals, that is, therapeutic electric devices, are now marketed for acute and or preventative treatment, including an external trigeminal nerve stimulator (e-TNS), a non-invasive vagal nerve stimulator (nVNS), a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulator (sTMS) and a remote electrical neuromodulation device (REN). At the moment, evidence for their effectiveness in children is still lacking. So, there has been much progress, but mostly for adults. We are in urgent need of more migraine trials in children.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959177).

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Improving distress perception and mutuality in migraine caregivers after 6 months of galcanezumab treatment

OBJECTIVE

This prospective cohort, real-life study aimed to evaluate whether galcanezumab, a monoclonal antibody anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand, can reduce caregivers' distress and improve their mutuality with patients.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a highly disabling chronic disease that negatively impacts patients' and often their relatives' lives, occurring during an active phase of life with direct consequences on leisure- and work-related activities. The figure of caregiver is crucial in several neurological conditions but poorly accounted for in migraine care so far. Studies on monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP pathway, recently introduced as migraine-preventive treatments, demonstrated that they significantly reduce migraine frequency and disability in the first weeks of treatment.

METHODS

Consecutive patient-caregiver dyads were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months of treatment with galcanezumab (V6) at our headache center from September 2020 to September 2021. Enrolled patients were requested to report their monthly migraine days, monthly intake of acute medications, attack pain intensity (on the Numeric Rating Scale), concomitant preventives, and disability questionnaires (Headache Impact Test, Migraine Disability Assessment). Each dyad filled in the Mutuality Scale to check their reciprocity; moreover, the Relatives' Stress Scale was used to detect caregivers' distress.

RESULTS

We enrolled 27 patient-caregiver dyads. At 6 months, migraine burden significantly improved with reductions in monthly migraine days (falling from 14.8 [SD = 4.8] days by 10.3 [SD = 4.8] days; 95% CI: 8.4, 12.2; p < 0.001) and Migraine Disability Assessment scores (lowering from 83.6 [SD = 46.7] by 71.5 points [SD = 49.3]; 95% CI: 51.2, 91.9; p < 0.001). From baseline to month 6, the caregiver Relatives' Stress Scale score significantly decreased (falling from 20.7 [SD = 13.7] by 6.5 [SD = 14.1] points; 95% CI: 0.8, 12.2; p = 0.027), while the Mutuality Scale's caregiver total score increased (from 3.04 [SD = 0.61] by 0.29 [SD = 0.49] points; 95% CI: -0.508, -0.064; p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings preliminarily demonstrated that patients' migraine improvement after 6 months of galcanezumab treatment could be favorably perceived by caregivers, significantly reducing their distress with better reciprocity within the dyad.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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

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

New Approaches to Shifting the Migraine Treatment Paradigm

The standard of care paradigm for migraine treatment has been based almost exclusively on approaches that grew out of the happenstance use of market pharmaceuticals. Only methysergide, which has long since been removed from use for safety concerns, the ergotamine family of drugs, and the triptans were explicitly developed with migraine and other vascular headaches in mind. While the forward and innovative thinking to utilize the broad array of agents to treat migraine served millions well, their therapeutic efficacy was often low, and adverse event profiles were troublesome in the least. Advances in biochemical and molecular biology and the application of advanced "designing drugs" methods have brought about a potentially significant shift in treatment. The gepants have efficacies similar to the triptans but without vascular safety or medication overuse concerns. Preventative gepants offer innovative approaches to prevention and efficacy that exceed even the CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Those monoclonal antibodies brought rapid and highly effective outcomes across the spectrum of migraine. They outpaced older oral medication efficacy and eliminated most adverse events while potentially improving compliance with monthly or quarterly dosing. Other serotonin receptors beyond the 5HT1B and1D receptors have been targeted for decades. They now lead us to better formulations of dihydroergotamine for efficacy, convenience, and tolerability, and a 5HT1F-specific acute treatment like the gepants opens new options for acute management. Neuromodulation goes back to the mid-1800's. Our improved understanding of applied biomedical engineering has brought forward several tantalizing devices, including the application of currents distant from the target and patient regulated. Whether these advances change the paradigm of migraine treatment and standards of care remains to be seen, and issues such as cost and patient acceptance will help mold it.

Real-World Patient Experience of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize available calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting therapies for migraine and discuss their use in real-world populations.

BACKGROUND

CGRP has long been a topic of interest in migraine pathophysiology, with new therapies targeting CGRP since 2018 for both the preventive and acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

We searched PubMed using keywords including "migraine," "CGRP," "real-world," "erenumab," "galcanezumab," "fremanezumab," "eptinezumab," "ubrogepant," "rimegepant," and "atogepant." We reviewed all pertinent studies and summarized main findings. We also compiled detailed patient characteristics (e.g., migraine diagnoses, medication overuse, prior treatment failures) and treatment outcome measures, such as 50% responder rates, reduction in migraine days, and adverse event rates in several tables. Overall, studies reporting real-world patient experiences of CGRP-targeting therapies suggested meaningful effectiveness for migraine treatment with response rates comparable to the numbers reported in clinical trials. Furthermore, studies suggested benefit in patients with multiple prior unsuccessful treatment trials, medication overuse, and complex medical comorbidities. In some studies, adverse event rates have been notably higher than reported in clinical trials. Additional long-term data is needed to further evaluate sustained efficacy, predictors of treatment response, and adverse events.