Candesartan in migraine prevention: results from a retrospective real-world study

Calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeting therapies are a first-line option for the prevention of migraine: An American Headache Society position statement update

OBJECTIVE

To provide a position statement update from The American Headache Society specifically regarding therapies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) for the prevention of migraine.

BACKGROUND

All migraine preventive therapies previously considered to be first-line treatments were developed for other indications and adopted later for migraine. Adherence to these therapies is often poor due to issues with efficacy and tolerability. Multiple new migraine-specific therapies have been developed based on a broad foundation of pre-clinical and clinical evidence showing that CGRP plays a key role in the pathogenesis of migraine. These CGRP-targeting therapies have had a transformational impact on the management of migraine but are still not widely considered to be first-line approaches.

METHODS

Evidence regarding migraine preventive therapies including primary and secondary endpoints from randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials, post hoc analyses and open-label extensions of these trials, and prospective and retrospective observational studies were collected from a variety of sources including PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The results and conclusions based upon these results were reviewed and discussed by the Board of Directors of The American Headache Society to confirm consistency with clinical experience and to achieve consensus.

RESULTS

The evidence for the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of CGRP-targeting migraine preventive therapies (the monoclonal antibodies: erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab, and eptinezumab, and the gepants: rimegepant and atogepant) is substantial, and vastly exceeds that for any other preventive treatment approach. The evidence remains consistent across different individual CGRP-targeting treatments and is corroborated by extensive "real-world" clinical experience. The data indicates that the efficacy and tolerability of CGRP-targeting therapies are equal to or greater than those of previous first-line therapies and that serious adverse events associated with CGRP-targeting therapies are rare.

CONCLUSION

The CGRP-targeting therapies should be considered as a first-line approach for migraine prevention along with previous first-line treatments without a requirement for prior failure of other classes of migraine preventive treatment.

Phenotype of new daily persistent headache: subtypes and comparison to transformed chronic daily headache

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether new daily persistent headache (NDPH) is a single disorder or heterogenous group of disorders, and whether it is a unique disorder from chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache. We describe a large group of patients with primary NDPH, compare its phenotype to transformed chronic daily headache (T-CDH), and use cluster analysis to reveal potential sub-phenotypes in the NDPH group.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study using prospectively collected clinical data in patients with primary NDPH and T-CDH (encompassing chronic migraine and chronic tension-type headache). We used logistic regression with propensity score matching to compare demographics, phenotype, comorbidities, and treatment responses between NDPH and T-CDH. We used K-means cluster analysis with Gower distance to identify sub-clusters in the NDPH group based on a combination of demographics, phenotype, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

We identified 366 patients with NDPH and 696 with T-CDH who met inclusion criteria. Patients with NDPH were less likely to be female (62.6% vs. 73.3%, p < 0.001). Nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia, motion sensitivity, vertigo, and cranial autonomic symptoms were all significantly less frequent in NDPH than T-CDH (p value for all < 0.001). Acute treatments appeared less effective in NDPH than T-CDH, and medication overuse was less common (16% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Response to most classes of oral preventive treatments was poor in both groups. The most effective treatment in NDPH was doselupin in 45.7% patients (95% CI 34.8-56.5%). Cluster analysis identified three subgroups of NDPH. Cluster 1 was older, had a high proportion of male patients, and less severe headaches. Cluster 2 was predominantly female, had severe headaches, and few associated symptoms. Cluster 3 was predominantly female with a high prevalence of migrainous symptoms and headache triggers.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there is overlap in the phenotype of NDPH and T-CDH, the differences in migrainous, cranial autonomic symptoms, and vulnerability to medication overuse suggest that they are not the same disorder. NDPH may be fractionated into three sub-phenotypes, which require further investigation.

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.

COVID-19 Vaccination Might Induce Reversible Cerebral Vasoconstriction Syndrome Attacks: A Case Report

A 30-year-old male diagnosed three years previously with reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome (RCVS) presented to the department of neurology with an accumulation of attacks mimicking previous RCVS attacks and fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for RCVS after receiving the first Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. The neurologic exam, blood samples, electrocardiogram (ECG), and computer tomography of the head (CTC) were normal. The patient was treated with the angiotensin 2 receptor antagonist, losartan, with a good response and was discharged with a prescription for losartan lasting until three days after the second Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. No further RCVS attacks were reported. These findings indicate that the COVID-19 vaccine might induce RCVS attacks in susceptible individuals, and targeting the angiotensin 2 receptor could be a preventive option.

Real world effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in the treatment of migraine: a retrospective cohort study

To date, two randomized, controlled studies support the use of candesartan for migraine prophylaxis but with limited external validity. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in clinical practice and to explore predictors of patient response. Retrospective cohort study including all patients with migraine who received candesartan between April 2008-February 2019. The primary endpoint was the number of monthly headache days during weeks 8-12 of treatment compared to baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the frequency during weeks 20-24. We analysed the percentage of patients with 50% and 75% response rates and the retention rates after three and 6 months of treatment. 120/4121 patients were eligible, aged 45.9 [11.5]; 100 (83.3%) female. Eighty-four patients (70%) had chronic migraine and 53 (42.7%) had medication-overuse headache. The median number of prior prophylactics was 3 (Inter-quartile range 2-5). At baseline, patients had 20.5 ± 8.5 headache days per month, decreasing 4.3 ± 8.4 days by 3 months (weeks 12-16) and by 4.7 ± 8.7 days by 6 months (paired Student's t-test, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 32.5% at 3 months and 31.7% at 6 months, while the retention rate was 85.0% and 58.3%. The number of prior treatments (Odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97) and the presence of daily headache (Odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.97) were associated with a lower probability of response. Candesartan showed beneficial effects in the preventive treatment of migraine in clinical practice, including patients with chronic migraine, medication-overuse headache and resistance to prior prophylactics.