201
|
Detke HC, Millen BA, Zhang Q, Samaan K, Ailani J, Dodick DW, Aurora SK. Rapid Onset of Effect of Galcanezumab for the Prevention of Episodic Migraine: Analysis of the EVOLVE Studies. Headache 2019; 60:348-359. [PMID: 31710104 PMCID: PMC7028148 DOI: 10.1111/head.13691] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/10/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Objective To evaluate onset of effect of galcanezumab in patients with episodic migraine. Background Galcanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds to calcitonin gene‐related peptide and is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine. Design/Methods Data on the primary outcome measure were analyzed from 2 previously published double‐blind, Phase 3 studies (EVOLVE‐1 [N = 858] and EVOLVE‐2 [N = 915]) wherein adult patients with episodic migraine were randomized to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab 120 mg (with 240‐mg loading dose) or 240 mg or placebo for up to 6 months. Monthly onset of effect was defined as the earliest month at which galcanezumab achieved and subsequently maintained statistical superiority to placebo on the mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days (MHDs). If onset occurred in Month 1, weekly onset was evaluated and defined as the earliest week at which galcanezumab statistically separated from placebo and maintained statistical separation for remaining weeks in that month. Day of onset of effect was also analyzed, as were monthly and weekly onset, for occurrence of ≥50% reduction from baseline in number of MHDs. Results For both studies, change from baseline in monthly MHDs showed a statistically significant separation of galcanezumab from placebo at Month 1 and each subsequent month (each P < .001). Analysis of the first month for both studies indicated onset of effect in the first week, with galcanezumab‐treated patients having significantly higher odds of having fewer MHDs in the first week (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] for EVOLVE‐1, 2.71 [2.00, 3.66], and for EVOLVE‐2, 2.88 [2.16, 3.86]; both P < .001) and each subsequent week compared with placebo‐treated patients (P ≤ .004). Daily analysis showed onset of effect at Day 1 (first day after injection day). Galcanezumab also demonstrated superiority to placebo on occurrence of ≥50% reduction in MHDs starting at Week 1 (percentage of patients with 50% response in galcanezumab group vs placebo group for EVOLVE‐1, 54.3% vs 32.4% [P < .001], and for EVOLVE‐2, 59.4% vs 38.0% [P < .001]). Conclusion Rapid onset of preventive effect on the first day after injection of galcanezumab was confirmed in both studies of episodic migraine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Qi Zhang
- Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
202
|
Elgendy IY, Nadeau SE, Bairey Merz CN, Pepine CJ. Migraine Headache: An Under-Appreciated Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Disease in Women. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8:e014546. [PMID: 31707945 PMCID: PMC6915301 DOI: 10.1161/jaha.119.014546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Islam Y Elgendy
- Division of Cardiology Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School Boston MA
| | - Stephen E Nadeau
- Department of Neurology University of Florida Gainesville FL.,ACOS for Research Malcolm Randall VA Medical Center Gainesville FL
| | - C Noel Bairey Merz
- Barbra Streisand Women's Heart Center Cedars-Sinai Smidt Heart Institute Los Angeles CA
| | - Carl J Pepine
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine University of Florida Gainesville FL
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
203
|
Ornello R, Tiseo C, Frattale I, Perrotta G, Marini C, Pistoia F, Sacco S. The appropriate dosing of erenumab for migraine prevention after multiple preventive treatment failures: a critical appraisal. J Headache Pain 2019; 20:99. [PMID: 31666008 PMCID: PMC6822439 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1054-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/09/2019] [Accepted: 10/13/2019] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was approved for the prevention of episodic (EM) or chronic migraine (CM) at the monthly dose of 70 mg or 140 mg. We reviewed the available literature to understand if patients with prior preventive treatment failures benefit more from the 140 mg dose than the 70 mg. Main body We searched papers indexed in PubMed and conference abstracts published in the last 2 years which assessed the safety and efficacy of erenumab in patients with prior preventive treatment failures. We reviewed the results of 3 randomized controlled trials and their subgroup analyses and open-label extensions. The 140 mg monthly dose of erenumab had a numerical advantage over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with prior preventive treatment failures, both in EM and CM (with or without medication overuse) during the double blind phases of the trials and their open-label extensions. The numerical difference between the two doses increased with the increase in the number of prior preventive treatment failures. Conclusions The available data suggest that erenumab 140 mg monthly might be preferred over the 70 mg monthly dose in patients with EM or CM and prior preventive treatment failures. Further data are needed to assess the long-term efficacy in clinical practice of the two doses of erenumab, while their safety profile is comparable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raffaele Ornello
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Cindy Tiseo
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Ilaria Frattale
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Giulia Perrotta
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Carmine Marini
- Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Francesca Pistoia
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy
| | - Simona Sacco
- Neuroscience Section, Department of Applied Clinical Sciences and Biotechnology, University of L'Aquila, Via Vetoio 1, 67100, L'Aquila, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
204
|
Miller AC, K Pfeffer B, Lawson MR, Sewell KA, King AR, Zehtabchi S. Intravenous Magnesium Sulfate to Treat Acute Headaches in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review. Headache 2019; 59:1674-1686. [PMID: 31566727 DOI: 10.1111/head.13648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Non-traumatic headaches comprise up to 4% of all emergency department (ED) visits. Current practice is moving toward multimodal analgesia regimens that limit narcotic use. OBJECTIVE The objective of this systematic review is to address the following research question: In patients with non-traumatic headaches (Population), does administration of intravenous magnesium sulfate (Intervention) compared to placebo, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, ergot alkaloids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), triptans, or usual care result in better pain control, lower rate of recurrence at 24 hours, lower requirements for rescue analgesia, and less adverse medication effects (Outcomes)? METHODS Scholarly databases and relevant bibliographies were searched, as were clinical trial registries and relevant conference proceedings to limit publication bias. Studies were not limited by date, language, or publication status. Inclusion criteria were: (1) randomized clinical trial (RCT), (2) patients age ≥18 years, (3) non-traumatic headache, (4) patients treated in ED or an outpatient acute care treatment center, and (5) magnesium sulfate administered intravenously (IV). Eligible comparison groups included: placebo, conventional therapy, dopamine antagonist, NSAID, corticosteroid, ergot alkaloid, or triptans. RESULTS Out of 4018 identified references, 7 RCTs (545 participants) that treated migraine headaches (n = 6) and benign non-traumatic headaches (n = 1) met inclusion criteria. Pain intensity was improved with magnesium sulfate vs comparators at 60-120 minutes, but not at earlier time points. Result for the endpoint of pain reduction by 50% were conflicting as 3 studies reported that headache was improved, unchanged, and less with magnesium sulfate. Complete pain relief was improved with magnesium sulfate in 1 study, and in the migraine with aura (MA) subgroup in another. The need for rescue analgesia at any point was improved with magnesium sulfate in 1 study, and in the MA subgroup in another. Twenty-four-hour headache recurrence was improved with magnesium sulfate in 1 study, but unchanged in a second. The intended meta-analysis was not performed due to the clinical heterogeneity among studies. CONCLUSION While we cannot draw a firm conclusion on the efficacy or benefit of intravenous magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute non-traumatic headaches, the existing evidence indicates potential benefits in pain control beyond 1 hour, aura duration, and need for rescue analgesia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew C Miller
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Brandon K Pfeffer
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Michael R Lawson
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Vidant Medical Center, East Carolina University Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Kerry A Sewell
- William E. Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Alexandra R King
- Emergency Medicine and Toxicology, Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, NC, USA
| | - Shahriar Zehtabchi
- Department of Emergency Medicine, State University of New York (SUNY) Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
205
|
D'Antona L, Matharu M. Identifying and managing refractory migraine: barriers and opportunities? J Headache Pain 2019; 20:89. [PMID: 31443629 PMCID: PMC6734232 DOI: 10.1186/s10194-019-1040-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2019] [Accepted: 08/12/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
The term refractory migraine has been used to describe persistent headache that is difficult to treat or fails to respond to standard and/or aggressive treatments. This subgroup of migraine patients are generally highly disabled and experience impaired quality of life, despite optimal treatments. Several definitions and criteria for refractory migraine have been published, but as yet, an accepted or established definition is not available. This article reviews the published criteria and proposes a new set of criteria. The epidemiology, pathophysiology and management options are also reviewed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda D'Antona
- Headache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology and The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK
| | - Manjit Matharu
- Headache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology and The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
206
|
Robblee J, VanderPluym J. Fremanezumab in the treatment of migraines: evidence to date. J Pain Res 2019; 12:2589-2595. [PMID: 31686900 PMCID: PMC6709817 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s166427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2019] [Accepted: 08/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a major player in migraine pathophysiology, and CGRP monoclonal antibodies including fremanezumab may be a safe effective preventive therapy. Phase IIb studies in episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) demonstrated efficacy at both the monthly 225 mg and quarterly 675 mg doses. The Phase III trials for EM and CM both showed a reduction in the primary endpoint of monthly migraine days (MMD). In the EM trial, the baseline MMD of 8.9 days was reduced to 5.3 at 12 weeks and to 4.0 days in the 6-month open-label extension (OLE) for monthly dosing. In the quarterly dosing, the baseline was 9.2 days reduced to 5.3 at 12 weeks and to 4.2 days in the OLE. In the CM data for monthly dosing, the baseline was 16.2 days decreased to 11.4 at 12 weeks then to 8.3 in the OLE. In the CM quarterly dosing, the baseline of 16.4 days was reduced to 11.9 at 12 weeks and 9.9 days in the OLE. Randomized controlled trials of fremanezumab in both episodic cluster and post-traumatic headache are underway, but the trial for chronic cluster headache was stopped for futility. The most common adverse events are injection site pain (24% vs 22% for placebo), induration (17% vs 13% for placebo), and erythema (16% vs 12% for placebo). Severe adverse events were reported in 3.9% of the fremanezumab vs 3.7% of the placebo. No changes in vitals or ECG were reported. The long-term effects are not known, but the American Headache Society recommends that CGRP monoclonal antibodies be considered in EM or CM depending on previous medication trials and headache disability/frequency. Further, post-market studies are required, but for EM and CM fremanezumab is a new option for migraine preventive treatment.
Collapse
|
207
|
|
208
|
Dave A, Ganesh A, Adil MM, Tsao JW. Practice Current: How do you diagnose and treat post-concussive headache? Neurol Clin Pract 2019; 9:263-270. [PMID: 31341715 DOI: 10.1212/cpj.0000000000000656] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
A common complaint after concussion is the development of new or worsening headaches which can make it difficult or even impossible for patients to work or function in their day-to-day lives. Uncertainties associated with the complaints and a wide variety of approaches exist regarding the appropriate work-up and management of these patients. Areas of ongoing debate include the need for neuroimaging; optimal, acute, and preventative treatment; and proper counseling and expectation management. Given the wide variety of potential approaches and the lack of consensus, we sought expert opinion from around the globe on how to evaluate and manage patients with headache following concussion. Similar questions were posed to the rest of our readership in an online survey (links.lww.com/CPJ/A96), the results of which are also presented.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ajal Dave
- Department of Medicine (AD), Neurology Service, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (AG), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; Vascular Neurology (MMA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke /National Institutes of Health (NINDS/NIH); Department of Neurology (JWT), University of Tennessee Health Science Center; and Children's Foundation Research Institute (JWT), Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Aravind Ganesh
- Department of Medicine (AD), Neurology Service, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (AG), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; Vascular Neurology (MMA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke /National Institutes of Health (NINDS/NIH); Department of Neurology (JWT), University of Tennessee Health Science Center; and Children's Foundation Research Institute (JWT), Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Malik Muhammad Adil
- Department of Medicine (AD), Neurology Service, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (AG), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; Vascular Neurology (MMA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke /National Institutes of Health (NINDS/NIH); Department of Neurology (JWT), University of Tennessee Health Science Center; and Children's Foundation Research Institute (JWT), Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN
| | - Jack W Tsao
- Department of Medicine (AD), Neurology Service, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (AG), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada; Vascular Neurology (MMA), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke /National Institutes of Health (NINDS/NIH); Department of Neurology (JWT), University of Tennessee Health Science Center; and Children's Foundation Research Institute (JWT), Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis, TN
| |
Collapse
|
209
|
Erratum. Headache 2019; 59:650-651. [DOI: 10.1111/head.13506] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|