Early outcomes of migraine after erenumab discontinuation: data from a real-life setting

Implications of therapy interruption on monthly migraine days and modified migraine disability assessment in patients treated with erenumab for chronic and episodic migraine: SQUARE study interim results

BACKGROUND

There are limited real-world data in Switzerland examining the impact of erenumab, a fully human IgG2 monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor, on migraine-related quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

This 18-month interim analysis of 172 patients with episodic or chronic migraine from the SQUARE study provides first prospective insights on the impact of mandatory erenumab treatment interruption, following Swiss-reimbursement requirements, in a real-world clinical setting in Switzerland.

FINDINGS

Recruited patients receiving 70 or 140 mg erenumab underwent treatment interruption on average 11.2 months after therapy onset with a mean duration of 4 months. There were sustained improvements in mean monthly migraine days (MMD) and migraine disability (mMIDAS) during initial treatment with erenumab. Treatment interruption was associated with a temporary worsening of condition. Symptoms ameliorated upon therapy reuptake reaching improvements similar to pre-break within 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment interruption was associated with a temporary worsening of condition, which improved again after therapy restart.

Clinical Evaluation After Discontinuation of Galcanezumab in Japanese Patients with Episodic and Chronic Migraine: Analysis of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial and Open-label Extension Study

INTRODUCTION

This analysis of two Japanese clinical trials evaluated efficacy and safety after galcanezumab (GMB) discontinuation in patients with episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM).

METHODS

Data were from a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo [PBO]-controlled primary trial (patients with EM) and a 12-month open-label extension trial (patients with EM/CM). Patients received 6 months' (primary) or 12/18 months' (extension) treatment with GMB 120 mg (GMB120) plus 240-mg loading dose or 240 mg (GMB240) with 4 months' post-treatment follow-up. Efficacy was assessed as number of monthly migraine headache days during post-treatment. Safety was assessed via post-treatment-emergent adverse events (PTEAEs).

RESULTS

The analysis population included 186 patients from the primary trial (PBO N = 93; GMB120 N = 45; GMB240 N = 48), 220 patients with EM from the extension trial (PBO/GMB120 N = 57; PBO/GMB240 N = 55; GMB120/GMB120 N = 55; GMB240/GMB240 N = 53), and 55 patients with CM (GMB120 N = 28; GMB240 N = 27). In patients with EM receiving 6 months' GMB120, mean standard deviation (SD) monthly migraine headache days increased from 5.69 (4.64) at treatment end to 6.24 (4.37) at end of follow-up but did not return to pre-treatment levels (8.80 [2.96]). In the extension trial, mean monthly migraine headache days in patients with EM receiving GMB120 were 4.13 (3.85) after 12 months and 4.45 (3.78) at end of follow-up, and 3.59 (3.48) after 18 months and 3.91 (3.57) at end of follow-up. Monthly migraine headache days in patients with CM (12 months' GMB120) were 10.71 (4.61) at treatment end and 11.17 (5.64) at end of follow-up (pre-treatment 20.15 [4.65]). Similar results were seen for patients receiving GMB240. The most observed PTEAE after GMB discontinuation was nasopharyngitis.

CONCLUSION

Galcanezumab exhibited post-treatment efficacy for up to 4 months in Japanese patients with EM and with CM. No unexpected safety signals were observed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 and NCT02959190.

Developments in targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapy has revolutionized migraine treatment since its first approval in 2018. CGRP-targeted therapy includes monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and gepants, which modulate trigeminal nociceptive and inflammatory responses, alleviating pain sensitization involved in migraine pathogenesis. CGRP-targeted therapy is effective not only for migraine but also for other chronic headache disorders that share the CGRP pathway.

AREAS COVERED

The authors review the latest developments and evidence for CGRP-targeted therapy for episodic migraine and chronic migraine. In addition, the authors discuss the emerging evidence on response prediction, menstrual migraine, vestibular migraine, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, post-traumatic headache, and the relationship between selected migraine comorbidities and CGRP.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the launch of CGRP-targeted therapy, many practical issues have been raised. Generally, it's safe to combine CGRP-targeted mAbs and gepants; this is an excellent option for patients with partial response. When considering stopping CGRP-targeted therapy, although a disease-modifying effect is likely, the optimal time for discontinuation remains unknown. Finally, beyond migraine, CGRP-targeted therapy may be used for other chronic pain disorders and psychological comorbidities.

Impact of multiple treatment cycles with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine course: focus on discontinuation periods. Insights from the multicenter, prospective, I-GRAINE study

OBJECTIVES

While a single 12-month treatment cycle (TrC) with anti-CGRP mAbs is not disease-modifying for most patients, there is limited understanding of the effects of multiple TrCs on migraine course. We evaluated whether a second TrC might modify the migraine course by comparing the occurrence of migraine relapse after discontinuation of the second TrC to that following the cessation of the first TrC.

METHODS

In a real-life, multicenter, prospective study we considered all consecutive patients diagnosed with high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM) or chronic migraine (CM) with > 3 treatment failures and treated with any anti-CGRP mAbs for ≥ 2 consecutive 12-month TrCs who were responders at week 12. The primary endpoint was the change in monthly migraine days (MMD) for HFEM or monthly headache days (MHD) for CM at the first month of treatment discontinuation after the second TrC (D2) compared to the first TrC (D1). Secondary endpoints included variations in monthly analgesic medications (MAM), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75%, and 100% response rates, and relapse from episodic migraine to CM and from no-medication overuse (MO) to MO at D2 vs. D1.

RESULTS

One-hundred-seventy-eight patients completed two 12-month TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs. At D2, patients experienced a significant reduction in MMD (- 0.6, p = 0.028), MHD (- 2.6, p < 0.001), monthly analgesic medications (- 2.0, p < 0.001), and HIT-6 score (- 2.2, p < 0.001) compared to D1, indicating improved effectiveness. The ≥ 50% response rate at weeks 45-48 during the first TrC was 95.5%, while at weeks 45-48 of the second TrC was 99.4%. Corresponding rates at D1 was 20.2% whereas at D2 was 51.6% (p < 0.0001). No statistical difference emerged in ≥ 75% and 100% responders. The relapse rate from episodic migraine to CM at D2 was lower than at D1 (12.3% vs 30.4%; p = 0.0002) Fewer patients experienced relapse from no-MO to MO at D2 compared to D1 (29.5% vs 68.7%; p = 0.00001).

DISCUSSION

A second TrC with anti-CGRP mAbs demonstrated clinical improvements compared to the first one, as indicated by a milder migraine relapse at D2 compared to D1. Multiple TrCs with anti-CGRP mAbs could progressively modify migraine evolution by reducing CGRP-dependent neuroinflammatory nociceptive inputs to the brain.

Long-Term Outcome After Discontinuation of CGRP-Targeting Therapy for Migraine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeting agents are potential candidates for disease-modifying migraine drugs. However, most studies on CGRP-targeting agents have assessed efficacy outcomes rather than long-term effects after discontinuation. This review aimed to synthesize and scrutinize the latest clinical data on the outcomes after the discontinuation of CGRP-targeting therapy in patients with episodic and chronic migraine, with a particular focus on chronic migraine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Real-world studies involving patients with migraine have reported consistent findings of worsened headache frequency and quality of life after the discontinuation of CGRP monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs). Although many patients maintain improvements for up to 4 months after discontinuation compared to baseline (before starting CGRP mAbs), no studies have evaluated the effects of stopping treatment for > 5 months, which is the five-half-life of CGRP mAbs. Several studies have suggested that patients treated with CGRP receptor mAbs experience more rapid deterioration than those treated with CGRP ligand mAbs after discontinuing CGRP mAbs. The results of real-world studies suggest that for many patients with migraine, the benefits of CGRP mAbs diminish months after discontinuation. Therefore, anti-CGRP therapies may not be considered disease-modifying. However, the comprehensive assessment of the disease-modifying potential of these drugs requires studies with extended treatment and cessation durations.

RE-START: Exploring the effectiveness of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide resumption after discontinuation in migraine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

According to the latest European guidelines, discontinuation of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP MAb) may be considered after 12-18 months of treatment. However, some patients may worsen after discontinuation. In this study, we assessed the response following treatment resumption.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted in 14 Headache Units in Spain. We included patients with response to anti-CGRP MAb with clinical worsening after withdrawal and resumption of treatment. Numbers of monthly migraine days (MMD) and monthly headache days (MHD) were obtained at four time points: before starting anti-CGRP MAb (T-baseline); last month of first treatment period (T-suspension); month of restart due to worsening (T-worsening); and 3 months after resumption (T-reintroduction). The response rate to resumption was calculated. Possible differences among periods were analysed according to MMD and MHD.

RESULTS

A total of 360 patients, 82% women, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age at migraine onset of 18 (12) years. The median (IQR) MHD at T-baseline was 20 (13) and MMD was 5 (6); at T-suspension, the median (IQR) MHD was 5 (6) and MMD was 4 (5); at T-worsening, the median (IQR) MHD was 16 (13) and MMD was 12 (6); and at T-reintroduction, the median (IQR) MHD was 8 (8) and MHD was 5 (5). In the second period of treatment, a 50% response rate was achieved by 57.4% of patients in MHD and 65.8% in MMD. Multivariate models showed significant differences in MHD between the third month after reintroduction and last month before suspension of first treatment period (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that anti-CGRP MAb therapy is effective after reintroduction. However, 3 months after resumption, one third of the sample reached the same improvement as after the first treatment period.

Retreating migraine patients in the second year with monoclonal antibodies anti-CGRP pathway: the multicenter prospective cohort RE-DO study

BACKGROUND

The outcome of migraine patients retreated with monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) or its receptor (anti-CGRPr) is not completely known.

METHODS

This multicentric prospective observational cohort study assessed monthly migraine days (MMDs), migraine acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 at baseline, after 90-112 days (Rev-1), after 84-90 days since Rev-1 (Rev-2) and 30 days after the last injection of anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs (Year-end), in the first and the second year after a discontinuation period.

RESULTS

We enrolled 226 patients (79.6% with chronic migraine; 55.3% on erenumab and 44.7% on galcanezumab or fremanezumab). MMDs, MAMI, and HIT-6-did not differ at the respective first and second-year evaluations in the entire cohort, and comparing anti-CGRP with anti-CGRPr Abs. MMDs (18.1 ± 7.8 vs. 3.4 ± 7.8), MAMI (26.7 ± 28.3 vs.17.7 ± 17.2), and HIT-6 scores (63.1 ± 5.9 vs. 67.1 ± 10.3) were lower in the second year than in the pre-treatment baseline (consistently, p < 0.0001). Second-year baseline MMDs were lower in patients on anti-CGRP mAbs (p = 0.001) and with lower pre-treatment baseline MMDs (p ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anti-CGRP/CGRPr mAbs are effective in the second as in the first year. The use of anti-CGRP or CGRPr mAbs influenced the second-year baseline MMDs, but their effectiveness did not differ during the two treatment years.

Towards precision medicine in migraine: Recent therapeutic advances and potential biomarkers to understand heterogeneity and treatment response

After 35 years since the introduction of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD), we are living in the era of the second great revolution in migraine therapies. First, discoveries of triptans provided a breakthrough in acute migraine treatment utilizing bench-to-bedside research results on the role of serotonin in migraine. Next, the discovery of the role of neuropeptides, more specifically calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in migraine attack led to the development of anti-CGRP therapies that are effective both in acute and preventive treatment, and are also able to reduce migraine-related burden. Here, we reviewed the most recent clinical studies and real-world data on available migraine-specific medications, including triptans, ditants, gepants and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Novel drug targets, such as PACAP and amylins were also discussed. To address the main challenges of migraine therapy, the high heterogeneity of people with migraine, the prevalent presence of various comorbid disorders, and the insufficient medical care of migraine patients were covered. Promising novel approaches from the fields of omics, blood and saliva biomarker, imaging and provocation studies might bring solutions for these challenges with the potential to identify further drug targets, distinguish more homogeneous patient subgroups, contribute to more optimal drug selection strategies, and detect biomarkers in association with headache features or predicting treatment efficacy. In the future, the combined analysis of data of different biomarker modalities with machine learning algorithms may serve precision medicine in migraine treatment.

Ten open questions in migraine prophylaxis with monoclonal antibodies blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide pathway: a narrative review

The monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) blocking the calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) pathway, collectively called here "anti-CGRP/rec mAbs", have dramatically improved preventive migraine treatment. Although their efficacy and tolerability were proven in a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and, maybe even more convincingly, in real world settings, a number of open questions remain. In this narrative review, we will analyze published data allowing insight in some of the uncertainties related to the use of anti-CGRP/rec mAbs in clinical practice: their differential efficacy in migraine subtypes, outcome predictors, switching between molecules, use in children and adolescents, long-term treatment adherence and persistence, effect persistence after discontinuation, combined treatment with botulinum toxin or gepants, added-value and cost effectiveness, effectiveness in other headache types, and potential contraindications based on known physiological effects of CGRP. While recent studies have already provided hints for some of these questions, many of them will not find reliable and definitive answers before larger studies, registries or dedicated RCTs are available.

Methodological considerations on real-world evidence studies of monoclonal antibodies against the CGRP-pathway for migraine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Real-world data are accumulating on the effectiveness, tolerability and safety of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine. We performed a systematic review of the methodology of prospective, observational, clinic-based real-world evidence studies with these drugs in both episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

The objectives were to evaluate the definitions and reported outcomes used, and to perform a risk of bias assessment for each of the different studies. PubMed and EMBASE were systematically queried for relevant scientific articles. Study quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using the "National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group".

RESULTS

Forty-six studies fitted the criteria for the systematic review and were included in the analysis. Ten studies (21.7%) defined a migraine day for the study, while only 5 studies defined a headache day for the study (10.9%). The most common primary endpoint/objective of the studies was change in monthly migraine days (n = 16, 34.8%), followed by responder rate (n = 15, 32.6%) and change in monthly headache days (n = 5, 10.9%). Eight studies (17.4%) did not define the primary endpoint/objective. Thirty-three studies were graded as "good" quality and 13 studies were graded as "fair".

CONCLUSION

Our analysis shows rather significant heterogeneity and/or lack of predefined primary outcomes/objectives, definitions of outcomes measures and the use of longitudinal monitoring (e.g. headache diaries). Standardization of terminology, definitions and protocol procedures for real-world evidence studies of preventive treatments for migraine are recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with PROSPERO with ID CRD42022369366.

Erenumab efficacy in migraine headache prophylaxis: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to show the efficiency of Erenumab in the preventive therapy of episodic and chronic migraine, which is still under research.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a chronic neurovascular disorder that causes disability and a social burden. There are various medications used for migraine prevention regimens, most of which have unwanted side effects and aren't often quite effective. Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets calcitonin gene-related peptide receptors and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for migraine prevention.

METHODS

For this systematic review, we searched through Scopus and PubMed databases using "Erenumab" or "AMG 334" and "migraine" as keywords, and all the studies from 2016 to March 18, 2022, were included. Original English articles assessing any outcomes referring to the efficacy of Erenumab in migraine headache treatment were included in this study.

RESULTS

We found 53 out of 605 papers eligible to be investigated. Erenumab in both dosages of 70 mg and 140 mg could decrease the mean of monthly migraine days and monthly acute migraine-specific medication days. Erenumab also has a higher rate of ≥ 50 %, ≥ 75 %, and 100 % reduction in monthly migraine days from the baseline in different regions. The efficacy of Erenumab was initiated in the first week of administration and sustained throughout and after treatment. Erenumab was also potent in the treatment of migraine with allodynia, aura, prior preventive therapy failure, medication overuse headache, and menstrual migraine. Erenumab also had favorable outcomes in combination therapy with other preventive drugs like Onabotulinumtoxin-A.

CONCLUSION

Erenumab had remarkable efficacy in the short and long-term treatment of episodic and chronic migraine, notably the patients with difficult-to-treat migraine headaches.

Switching anti-CGRP(R) monoclonal antibodies in multi-assessed non-responder patients and implications for ineffectiveness criteria: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

A pharmacological class effect was initially proposed for monoclonal antibodies against the calcitonin gene related peptide pathway. However, preliminary evidence shows that switching patients who were non-responding to one monoclonal antibody to another could provide some benefit. Herein, we assess treatment response to an anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/receptor monoclonal antibody in patients who have failed to respond to anti-calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies calcitonin gene related peptide/ligand monoclonal antibodies and vice versa. In addition, we select non-responders to the first anti- monoclonal antibody by three or five more stringent variables.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study including outpatients treated consecutively with two anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies. Ineffectiveness to the first monoclonal antibody was assessed using three (MIDAS score, monthly headache days, and analgesic monthly days) variables or five (monthly headache days, MIDAS score, analgesic monthly days, analgesic monthly number and HIT-6 score) variables in the same cohort of patients. The primary endpoints were the absolute change from baseline in monthly headache days, response rate, and persistence in medication overuse at three months of treatment with the second anti-CGRP mAb.

RESULTS

In patients selected by three variables, a sustained reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, MIDAS and HIT-6 scores was observed at month-3 of treatment with the second monoclonal antibody. Ten (45.4%) patients achieved at least a ≥30% response rate. No difference was reported switching anti-CGRP mAb against ligand or receptor. In the patient subgroup selected by five variables, only HIT-6 was reduced from baseline at month-3. However, a trend toward a reduction in monthly headache days, analgesic monthly days, and MIDAS score was observed at month-3.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching anti-calcitonin gene related peptide monoclonal antibodies in selected patients might be an option to achieve or improve clinical benefit. More studies are required to establish the effectiveness of switching these treatments.

CGRP physiology, pharmacology, and therapeutic targets: migraine and beyond

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) is a neuropeptide with diverse physiological functions. Its two isoforms (α and β) are widely expressed throughout the body in sensory neurons as well as in other cell types, such as motor neurons and neuroendocrine cells. CGRP acts via at least two G protein-coupled receptors that form unusual complexes with receptor activity-modifying proteins. These are the CGRP receptor and the AMY1 receptor; in rodents, additional receptors come into play. Although CGRP is known to produce many effects, the precise molecular identity of the receptor(s) that mediates CGRP effects is seldom clear. Despite the many enigmas still in CGRP biology, therapeutics that target the CGRP axis to treat or prevent migraine are a bench-to-bedside success story. This review provides a contextual background on the regulation and sites of CGRP expression and CGRP receptor pharmacology. The physiological actions of CGRP in the nervous system are discussed, along with updates on CGRP actions in the cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, immune, hematopoietic, and reproductive systems and metabolic effects of CGRP in muscle and adipose tissues. We cover how CGRP in these systems is associated with disease states, most notably migraine. In this context, we discuss how CGRP actions in both the peripheral and central nervous systems provide a basis for therapeutic targeting of CGRP in migraine. Finally, we highlight potentially fertile ground for the development of additional therapeutics and combinatorial strategies that could be designed to modulate CGRP signaling for migraine and other diseases.

The sense of stopping migraine prophylaxis

INTRODUCTION

Migraine prophylactic therapy has changed over recent years with the development and approval of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway. As new therapies emerged, leading headache societies have been providing guidelines on the initiation and escalation of such therapies. However, there is a lack of robust evidence looking at the duration of successful prophylaxis and the effects of therapy discontinuation. In this narrative review we explore both the biological and clinical rationale for prophylactic therapy discontinuation to provide a basis for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Three different literature search strategies were conducted for this narrative review. These include i) stopping rules in comorbidities of migraine in which overlapping preventives are prescribed, notably depression and epilepsy; ii) stopping rules of oral treatment and botox; iii) stopping rules of antibodies targeting the CGRP (receptor). Keywords were utilized in the following databases: Embase, Medline ALL, Web of Science Core collection, Cochran Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar.

DISCUSSION

Reasons to guide decision-making in stopping prophylactic migraine therapies include adverse events, efficacy failure, drug holiday following long-term administration, and patient-specific reasons. Certain guidelines contain both positive and negative stopping rules. Following withdrawal of migraine prophylaxis, migraine burden may return to pre-treatment level, remain unchanged, or lie somewhere in-between. The current suggestion to discontinue CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after 6 to 12 months is based on expert opinion, as opposed to robust scientific evidence. Current guidelines advise the clinician to assess the success of CGRP(-receptor) targeted mAbs after three months. Based on excellent tolerability data and the absence of scientific data, we propose if no other reasons apply, to stop the use of mAbs when the number of migraine days decreases to four or fewer migraine days per month. There is a higher likelihood of developing side effects with oral migraine preventatives, and so we suggest stopping these drugs according to the national guidelines if they are well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Translational and basic studies are warranted to investigate the long-term effects of a preventive drug after its discontinuation, starting from what is known about the biology of migraine. In addition, observational studies and, eventually, clinical trials focusing on the effect of discontinuation of migraine prophylactic therapies, are essential to substantiate evidence-based recommendations on stopping rules for both oral preventives and CGRP(-receptor) targeted therapies in migraine.

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.

Change of CGRP Plasma Concentrations in Migraine after Discontinuation of CGRP-(Receptor) Monoclonal Antibodies

Discontinuation of treatment with monoclonal antibodies (mAb) targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) pathway leads to an increase in migraine frequency. We aimed to assess changes in free and total CGRP plasma concentrations after the discontinuation of CGRP(-receptor) mAbs. This prospective analysis included 59 patients with migraine (n = 25 erenumab, n = 25 galcanezumab, n = 9 fremanezumab) who discontinued mAbs after ≥8 months of treatment. Patients were visited at the time of the last mAb injection (V1) and 16 weeks later (V2). For control, 30 migraine patients without preventive drug therapy were included. We measured free CGRP plasma concentrations in the erenumab and fremanezumab group and total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group. Free CGRP plasma concentrations did not change after treatment discontinuation [erenumab: V1 31.2 pg/mL (IQR 25.8−45.6), V2 30.3 pg/mL (IQR 22.9−47.6), p = 0.65; fremanezumab V1 29.4 pg/mL (IQR 16.4−61.9), V2 34.4 (19.2−62.0), p = 0.86]. Controls had similar CGRP values of 32.6 pg/mL (IQR 21.3−44.6). Total CGRP concentrations in the galcanezumab group were 5439.3 pg/mL (2412.7−6338.1) at V1, and decreased to 1853.2 pg/mL (1136.5−3297.0) at V2 (p < 0.001). Cessation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs did not have an impact on the free-circulating CGRP concentrations. Total CGRP decreased significantly after three months of treatment discontinuation.

Effectiveness of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in the preventive treatment of migraine: A prospective study of 63 patients

INTRODUCTION

Calcitonine Gen-Related Peptide (CGRP) established a revolution in migraine pathophysiology knowledge and has led to the development of new drugs specifically targeting this disease.

METHODS

We present a prospective study in which 63 episodic and chronic migraine patients have been treated with anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies describing their efficacy, security and relapses after their interruption. Response predictors have been analyzed such they can help us to create a better treatment plan.

RESULTS

Average age was 48.3 ± 11.81 years old, 84.1% of them being women. The average was of 15.59 migraine days per month (MDM). 63.5% of all patients suffered chronic migraine. The initial dose of Erenumab in all patient was 70 mg subcutaneous. This was increased to 140 mg in 47.6% of the patients. An MDM reduction between 49.85% and 59.53% was obtained within three to twelve months from the start of treatment. Constipation was present in 17.5% of the patients and 4.8% suffered injection site reaction. The treatment was changed to Galcanezumab in 17.9% of the patients. After interrupting the treatment, 23 patients relapsed with a good response on reintroduction of the treatment. It was not possible to establish a clear response predictor, however a statistically significant increase in the number of days of improvement was observed with more MDM at baseline level (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies are effective, safe, and well tolerated drugs. We have observed that their discontinuation, in some cases can lead to frequent and early relapses so we strongly recommend to extend the treatment in those patients with a higher MDM.

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

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

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.

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

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

Non-opioid Intravenous Drugs for Pain Management in Patients Presenting with Acute Migraine Pain in the Emergency Department: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Context

Migraine is one of the most common causes of disability worldwide and the sixth cause of loss of life years due to disability. Migraine is reported mainly in young and middle-aged people, so it can cause a person to face many problems in doing daily tasks. The emergency department annually accepts 1.2 million patients with migraine. Therefore, timely diagnosis of the disease, knowledge of valuable drugs in an emergency, knowing how to use them, and finally, early treatment can play an essential and decisive role in improving patients' symptoms and reducing the disability caused by the disease. An essential and valuable drug category in the emergency department to manage pain is non-opioid intravenous (IV) drugs. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate non-opioid IV drugs to manage pain in patients with acute migraines in the emergency department.

Method

This study conducted a comprehensive literature review to access the latest scientific studies and documents using keywords (acute migraine, non-opioid IV drugs, pain management) in reliable databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. We reviewed 87 articles, 53 of which were evaluated and compared.

Results

A review study considers intravenous acetaminophen as a suitable option for the first-line treatment of acute migraine in the emergency department if the patient does not tolerate aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Various studies have obtained positive effects of NSAIDs and dihydroergotamine (DHE) in treating acute migraine. Prescribing anti-dopaminergic drugs can effectively reduce associated symptoms such as nausea and vomiting. Dexamethasone and magnesium sulfate are effective in preventing migraine and severe attacks. Intravenous sodium valproate is effective in moderate to severe migraine attacks or treatment-resistant migraines. In the emergency department, prescribing intravenous haloperidol, lidocaine, and propofol can help manage migraine and improve other associated symptoms, such as nausea or vomiting.

Conclusions

Non-opioid IV drugs are essential to manage pain and improve other migraine symptoms in the emergency setting. Knowing the above drugs and their optimal use has a decisive role in managing patients with acute migraine in the emergency department.

Galcanezumab modulates Capsaicin-induced C-fiber reactivity

Background

The vasodilatory calcitonin-gene related peptide (CGRP) is understood as pivotal mediator in migraine pathophysiology. Blocking CGRP with small molecules or monoclonal antibodies (CGRP-mAb) reduces migraine frequency. However, prescription of CGRP-mAbs is still regulated and possible predictive measures of therapeutic success would be useful.

Methods

Using standardized capsaicin-induced dermal blood flow model, 29 migraine patients underwent a laser speckle imaging measurement before and after administration of galcanezumab. At both sessions dermal blood flow before and after capsaicin stimulation as well as flare size were analyzed over all three trigeminal branches and the volar forearm for extracranial control. Long-term measures were repeated in 14 patients after continuous treatment ranging from 6 to 12 months.

Results

Resting dermal blood flow remained unchanged after administration of galcanezumab. Capsaicin-induced dermal blood flow decreased significantly after CGRP-mAb in all tested areas compared to baseline and this was consistent even after 12 months of treatment. However, following galcanezumab administration, the flare size decreased only in the three trigeminal dermatomes, not the arm and was therefore specific for the trigemino-vascular system. None of these two markers distinguished between responders and non-responders.

Conclusion

CGRP-mAb changed blood flow response to capsaicin stimulation profoundly and this effect did not change over a 12-month application. Neither capsaicin-induced flare nor dermal blood flow can be used as a predictor for treatment efficacy. These data suggest that the mechanism of headache development in migraine is not entirely CGRP-mediated.

Real-world evidence following a mandatory treatment break after a 1-year prophylactic treatment with calcitonin gene-related peptide (pathway) monoclonal antibodies

BACKGROUND

Current German and European guidelines suggest migraine patients undertake a treatment break after 9 to 12 months of treatment with CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibodies.

METHODS

Clinical routine data of highly resistant migraine patients were analyzed before treatment with CGRP monoclonal antibodies (baseline), after 12 months of treatment, and following a treatment break between November 2018 and December 2020 in the West German Headache Centre, University Hospital Essen, Germany. Monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), and days of acute medication intake (AMD) were assessed.

RESULTS

Complete clinical data from 46 migraine patients (14 episodic migraine (EM), 32 chronic migraine (CM) patients) treated with erenumab (n = 40), galcanezumab (n = 4), and fremanezumab (n = 2) were analyzed. The mean number of MMDs among EM and CM patients after 12 months of CGRP antibody treatment increased during the treatment break by 5.18 (SE 0.92, p < .001) and 5.06 (SE 1.22, p = .003) days, respectively. There was an increased intake of acute medications among episodic (4.72, SE 0.87, p = .004) and chronic migraine patients (3.01, SE 1.08, p = .013) during treatment break. Eighty-three percent of patients (n = 38) were dissatisfied with the mandatory treatment break. All patients continued with a CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibody after the mandatory treatment break.

CONCLUSION

A mandatory break in CGRP (pathway) monoclonal antibody therapy had a negative short-term impact on migraine patients.

CGRP Targeting Therapy for Chronic Migraine-Evidence from Clinical Trials and Real-world Studies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have become part of the standard treatment for migraine in clinical practice. The current review focuses on the clinical evidence of CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with chronic migraine (CM), including more challenging cases.

RECENT FINDINGS

CGRP monoclonal antibodies were more effective than placebo in reducing the number of monthly migraine days (MMDs), and the change relative to placebo in the treatment group was between - 1.2 and - 2.7 days at 3 months. CGRP monoclonal antibodies resulted in ≥ 50% response in 27.5 to 61.4% of patients, and doubled the odds for having ≥ 50% response. The findings were generally consistent in patients with coexisting medication overuse or with treatment failures to multiple preventive medications, including onabotulinumtoxinA. The results from real-world studies (RWS) were similar to those seen in clinical trials, and the changes from baseline in the number of MMDs and the response rates largely fell within the ranges of those reported in the treatment group in pivotal trials. The therapeutic effects typically started within a few days, and remained steady after regular treatment for up to 1 year. These agents were generally well tolerated, and the discontinuation rates due to adverse events in clinical trials and in many RWS were < 4.5%. CGRP monoclonal antibodies are effective and safe in the treatment of patients with CM, including clinical challenging cases. However, the role of CGRP monoclonal antibodies in a number of conditions, such as cardiovascular or cerebrovascular diseases, pregnancy, and overuse of opioids or barbiturates, needs to be further clarified.

Treatment of migraine with monoclonal antibodies

INTRODUCTION

: In the few last years, a new family of drugs, anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), has been developed for migraine therapy. Anti-CGRP mAbs are highly effective, but the current limited experience with their use and their high-cost warrant establishing certain rules of use.

AREAS COVERED

The present review provides an overview of the management of migraine patients, especially those who are undergoing treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs.

EXPERT OPINION

Thanks to new research focused on the pathophysiology of migraine, and the discovery that CGRP plays a key role in its etiopathogenesis, new drugs targeting CGRP have been developed. These drugs have led to a paradigm shift, anticipating new and stimulating possibilities in migraine treatment. While physicians and patients are full of expectation about the advantages of this new family of drugs, there are still obstacles to overcome in order to make the best use of them. It is essential to form multidisciplinary teams that can identify patients who will benefit from these therapies, conducting cost-effective treatments. The follow-up of these therapies in the coming years is paramount due to the lack of experience in the management of these drugs and the peculiarity of disease evolution in migraine patients.

Migraine Prevention with Erenumab: Focus on Patient Selection, Perspectives and Outcomes

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor suitable for episodic and chronic migraine prevention. Randomized clinical trials proved the superiority of erenumab to placebo in a strictly selected population, while real-world studies confirmed treatment efficacy in more severe forms of disease – most patients suffered from chronic migraine with medication overuse headache, had prior treatment failures, and long disease duration. According to guidelines, anti-CGRP pathway monoclonal antibodies should be reserved to patients who failed or have contraindication to several classes of preventive treatments. However, their ease of use, tolerability and efficacy make these monoclonal antibodies ideally suitable for most patients with migraine; cost-effectiveness needs to be considered when looking at expanding current prescription criteria. Also, data from open label extensions of randomized control trials confirmed sustained benefits of prolonged treatment up to 5 consecutive years without significant risk of adverse events. Further studies will provide insights on optimal treatment duration to achieve migraine remission and predictors of treatment response. In the present work, we aimed at reviewing design and results of the main studies on erenumab and discussing treatment use in the current migraine prevention scenario; we also summarized the main ongoing research projects and provided clinical perspectives for the future.

Resumption of migraine preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) antibodies after a 3-month drug holiday: a real-world experience

Background

Migraine frequency increases after the cessation of successful preventive treatment with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the course of migraine after treatment resumption.

Methods

Patients with migraine, who started treatment with the same CGRP(-R) mAb after a three-month drug holiday were included in this analysis. We collected headache data at four prospective visits: 1) during the four weeks before the initial mAb treatment (baseline); 2) during the four weeks before the last mAb injection; 3) in weeks 13–16 of the drug holiday; 4) in weeks 9–12 after treatment restart. Outcomes were the changes in monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), monthly days with acute medication use (AMD) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) scores across the observation period.

Results

This study included 39 patients (erenumab n = 16; galcanezumab/ fremanezumab n = 23). MMD decreased from 12.3 ± 6.3 at the end of the drug holiday to 7.8 ± 5.5 three months after treatment restart (p = 0.001). The improvement after treatment resumption was similar to the response in the initial treatment period (baseline: 12.3 ± 6.3 MMD vs. 7.5 ± 5.2 MMD before treatment interruption). MHD and AMD showed a significant improvement after treatment restart. HIT-6 scores decreased, indicating a diminished impact of headache on everyday life.

Conclusions

Reinitiation of treatment with CGRP(-R) mAbs after a drug holiday leads to a significant reduction of migraine frequency and medication use as well as improvement in quality of life.

Erenumab for episodic migraine

In this review, the authors provide an overview of erenumab, a monoclonal antibody used for the preventative treatment of episodic migraine by targeting the CGRP pathway. Randomized controlled trials have shown that erenumab is associated with a statistically significant decrease in monthly migraine days in patients with episodic migraine at monthly doses of 70 or 140 mg when given for a period of 9-12 weeks. Post hoc analyses have also shown long-term maintenance of efficacy. Clinical trials have found erenumab at doses of both 70 and 140 mg to have a favorable safety profile. Erenumab faces significant limitations because of its high financial cost. Additional long-term real-world data are needed to understand the role of erenumab in the treatment of migraine.

Predictors of Sustained Response and Effects of Anti-CGRP Antibodies Discontinuation and Reinitiation in Resistant Chronic Migraine

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for migraine prophylaxis suggest stopping medication after 6-12 months to reevaluate treatment appropriateness. The Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) set a mandatory regulation to stop anti-CGRP (calcitonin gene related protein) pathway monoclonal antibody (anti-CGRP mAbs) treatments for 3 months after 12-months of treatment. Herein, we assess the effects of discontinuation and retreatment of anti-CGRP mAbs in resistant chronic migraine patients, evaluating predictive factors of sustained response.

METHODS

A monocentric prospective cohort study, enrolling 44 severe (resistant to ≥3 preventive treatments) chronic migraine patients (all with medication-overuse), treated with erenumab (54.5%) or galcanezumab (45.5%) for 12-months, who discontinued treatment for three months and then restarted for one month.

RESULTS

Overall, patients reported an increasing deteriorating trend during the three months of discontinuation. Monthly migraine days (MMDs), number of analgesics, days with at least one analgesic used, a ≥50% response rate (reduction in MMDs), and MIDAS and HIT-6 total scores, remained lower than baseline values, but increased if compared to month-12 of treatment. All outcome measures decreased again during the month of retreatment. Patients who did not meet criteria for restarting treatment had lower MIDAS (p=0.03) and HIT-6 (p=0.01) scores at baseline and better outcome measures during discontinuation compared to patients who restarted treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In most patients, the 3-month discontinuation of anti-CGRP mAbs resulted in progressive migraine deterioration that was rapidly reverted by retreatment. However, one-fourth of patients, who reported better quality of life indices before treatment, showed a sustained benefit during discontinuation and did not need retreatment.

Erenumab Discontinuation After 12-Month Treatment: A Multicentric, Observational Real-Life Study

Objective

To assess migraine outcome after 12-month treatment with erenumab and compare patients who underwent 3-month erenumab discontinuation following the first treatment cycle with those who continued monthly administrations.

Methods

This is a multicentric observational study in patients with migraine in treatment with erenumab. After a full 12-month treatment cycle (T¹²), patients could either continue or discontinue erenumab for at least 3 months. Patients who underwent treatment discontinuation were assessed after 3 months (T¹⁵) to decide whether to start retreatment. Patients were then assessed following at T¹⁶ and T¹⁸.

Results

Thirty consecutive patients were enrolled. Nineteen patients underwent treatment suspension at T¹² up to T¹⁵, whereas 11 continued prophylaxis. At T¹⁵, patients who discontinued treatment documented significantly more migraine days (17.06 ± 6.5 vs 4.8 ± 2.5; p < 0.0001) and analgesics consumption (14.8 ± 9.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.5; p = 0.002), compared with those who continued treatment. After retreatment, at T¹⁶, patients who had previously undergone discontinuation documented a significant improvement in terms of migraine days (9.01 ± 4.4 vs 17.06 ± 6.5; p < 0.0001) and analgesics consumption (9.6 ± 7.3 vs 14.8 ± 9.2; p = 0.004). Such improvement was even greater at T¹⁸, comparable with T¹².

Conclusion

After treatment discontinuation, a rapid migraine worsening was found, despite the high clinical response during treatment and at retreatment, which might be secondary to an untimely interruption of a potentially disease-modifying pharmacologic intervention. Although clinical improvement was documented after retreatment, given the high frequency and degree of worsening during discontinuation, it seems plausible-even ethical-to re-evaluate current timing of discontinuation.

Classification of Evidence

This study provides Class III evidence that people with migraine discontinuing erenumab migraine prophylaxis after 12 months were more likely to have an increase in nonresponder status and migraine days than those who continued treatment.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Discontinuing monoclonal antibodies targeting CGRP pathway after one-year treatment: an observational longitudinal cohort study

Background

Monoclonal antibodies anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (mAbs anti-CGRP) pathway are effective and safe on migraine prevention. However, some drug agencies limited these treatments to one year due to their high costs. This study aimed at evaluating the effect of discontinuing mAbs anti-CGRP on monthly migraine days (MMDs) and disability in high-frequency episodic (HFEM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients.

Methods

This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted at 10 Italian headache centres. Consecutive adult patients were followed-up for three months (F-UP1–3) after discontinuation of a one-year erenumab/galcanezumab treatment. The primary endpoint was the change in F-UP MMDs. Secondary endpoints included variation in pain intensity (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), monthly acute medication intake (MAMI), and HIT-6 scores. We also assessed from F-UP1 to 3 the ≥50% response rate, relapse rate to CM, and recurrence of Medication Overuse (MO).

Results

We enrolled 154 patients (72.1% female, 48.2 ± 11.1 years, 107 CM, 47 HFEM); 91 were treated with erenumab, 63 with galcanezumab. From F-UP1 to F-UP3, MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 progressively increased but were still lower at F-UP3 than baseline (Friedman’s analysis of rank, p < .001). In the F-UP1–3 visits, ≥50% response rate frequency did not differ significantly between CM and HFEM patients. However, the median reduction in response rate at F-UP3 was higher in HFEM (− 47.7% [25th, − 79.5; 75th,-17.0]) than in CM patients (− 25.5% [25th, − 47.1; 75th, − 3.3]; Mann-Whitney U test; p = .032). Of the 84 baseline CM patients who had reverted to episodic migraine, 28 (33.3%) relapsed to CM at F-UP1, 35 (41.7%) at F-UP2, 39 (46.4%) at F-UP3. Of the 64 baseline patients suffering of medication overuse headache ceasing MO, 15 (18.3%) relapsed to MO at F-UP1, 26 (31.6%) at F-UP2, and 30 (42.3%, 11 missing data) at F-UP3. Lower MMDs, MAMI, NRS, and HIT-6 and higher response rate in the last month of therapy characterized patients with ≥50% response rate at F-UP1 and F-UP3 (Mann-Whitney U test; consistently p < .01).

Conclusion

Migraine frequency and disability gradually increased after mAbs anti-CGRP interruption. Most patients did not relapse to MO or CM despite the increase in MMDs. Our data suggest to reconsider mAbs anti-CGRP discontinuation.

Preventive treatment with CGRP monoclonal antibodies restores brain stem habituation deficits and excitability to painful stimuli in migraine: results from a prospective case-control study

Background & Objectives

Calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand/receptor (CGRP) antibodies effectively reduce headache frequency in migraine. It is understood that they act peripherally, which raises the question whether treatment merely interferes with the last stage of headache generation or, alternatively, causes secondary adaptations in the central nervous system and might thus possess disease modifying potential. This study addresses this question by investigating the nociceptive blink reflex (nBR), which is closely tied to central disease activity, before and after treatment with CGRP antibodies.

Methods

We enrolled 22 patients suffering episodic migraine (21 female, 46.2 ± 13.8 years of age) and 22 age-/gender-matched controls. Patients received assessments of the nBR (R2 component, 10 trials, 6 stimuli/trial) before (V0) and three months (V3) after treatment with CGRP antibodies started, controls were assessed once. The R2 area (R2a) and habituation (R2h; gradient of R2a against stimulus order) of the stimulated/non-stimulated side (_s/_ns) following repeated supraorbital stimulation provide a direct readout of brainstem excitability and habituation as key mechanisms in migraine.

Results

All patients showed a substantial reduction of headache days/month (V0: 12.4±3.3, V3: 6.6 ± 4.9). R2a_s (F_global=5.86, p<0.001; block 1: R2a_s: -28%, p<0.001) and R2a_ns (F_global=8.22, p<0.001, block 1: R2a_ns: -22%, p=0.003) were significantly decreased, and R2h_ns was significantly enhanced (F_global=3.07, p<0.001; block 6: R2h_ns: r=-1.36, p=0.007) from V0 to V3. The global test for changes of R2h_s was non-significant (F_global=1.46, p=0.095). Changes of R2h significantly correlated with improvement of headache frequency (R2h_s, r=0.56, p=0.010; R2h_ns: r=0.45, p=0.045). None of the nBR parameters assessed at baseline predicted treatment response.

Discussion

We provide evidence that three months of treatment with CGRP antibodies restores brain stem responses to painful stimuli and thus might be considered disease modifying. The nociceptive blink reflex may provide a biomarker to monitor central disease activity. Future studies should evaluate the blink reflex as a clinical biomarker to predict treatment response at baseline and to establish the risk of relapse after treatment discontinuation.

Trial registration

This trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT04019496, date of registration: July 15, 2019).

Migraine evolution after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibody prophylaxis: a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

National and international guidelines recommend stopping migraine prophylaxis with CGRP(-receptor) monoclonal antibodies after 6-12 months of successful therapy. In this study, we aimed to analyze the course of migraine for four months after the cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies use.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included patients with migraine who received a CGRP-(receptor) antibody for ≥8 months before treatment cessation. We analyzed headache data in the four-week period prior to mAb treatment initiation (baseline), in the month before the last mAb injection, in weeks 5-8 and 13-16 after last treatment. Primary endpoint of the study was the change of monthly migraine days from the month before last treatment to weeks 13-16. Secondary endpoints were changes in monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients equally distributed between prophylaxis with the CGRP-receptor antibody erenumab and the CGRP antibodies galcanezumab or fremanezumab participated in the study. Patients reported 8.2 ± 6.6 monthly migraine days in the month before last treatment. Monthly migraine days gradually increased to 10.3 ± 6.8 in weeks 5-8 (p = 0.001) and to 12.5 ± 6.6 in weeks 13-16 (p < 0.001) after drug cessation. Monthly migraine days in weeks 13-16 were not different from baseline values (-0.8 ± 5.4; p > 0.999). Monthly headache days and monthly days with acute medication use showed a similar pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

The cessation of CGRP(-receptor) antibodies migraine prophylaxis was associated with a significant increase of migraine frequency and acute medication intake over time.

Predictors of response to erenumab after 12 months of treatment

OBJECTIVE

Erenumab is a monoclonal antibody acting against calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor and approved for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine. The aim of the present study is to identify clinical predictors of good response in patients with chronic migraine and medication overuse-headache.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center not funded study. Enrolled patients were affected by chronic migraine and medication overuse-headache treated with erenumab monthly, up to 1 year. At 1 year, patients were classified as good responders if they displayed a ≥50% reduction in the number of headache days per months compared to the baseline.

RESULTS

After 1 year, a significant improvement in the number of headache days per months, analgesic consumption, 6-items headache impact test, and migraine disability assessment questionnaire scores were obtained compared to the baseline. Patients who obtained a ≥50% reduction in the number of headache days per month compared to the baseline displayed a longer history of medication overuse-headache, a higher number of painkillers taken per month at the baseline and a higher number of failed preventive treatments in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with longer medication overuse-headache duration, higher analgesic intake, and a higher number of previous preventive treatment failures may receive less benefit with erenumab.

Impact on monthly migraine days of discontinuing anti-CGRP antibodies after one year of treatment - a real-life cohort study

Objective

This study aims to analyse the effect of the discontinuation of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies on monthly migraine days after 12 treatment months.

Background

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies have been a game changer in migraine prophylaxis. However, high treatment costs warrant reducing treatment duration to the essential minimum.

Methods

We collected data of patients with migraine who had received anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies and had received treatment for 12 months.

Results

We included 52 patients. The average number of monthly migraine days was 16 ± 7 days at baseline, 6 ± 6 in the third, and 5 ± 4 in the 12th treatment month. After treatment interruption, the number of monthly migraine days was 6 ± 4 days in the first month, 9 ± 4 days in the second, and 11 ± 5 days in the third month. Most patients (88.9%) restarted treatment.

Conclusion

Only little of the therapeutic effect of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide antibodies outlasts their pharmacological effect. After treatment interruption, migraine frequency rose in most patients, and prophylaxis was required again in most cases.

Limiting treatment to benefitting patients and confirming the need for prophylaxis periodically is reasonable. However, our data does not support the need for prescheduled treatment discontinuation after 12 months and a fixed duration of the treatment interruption of 3 months.

Real-world migraine-related healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine: a panel-based chart review in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine.

METHODS

This was a follow-up to a retrospective, panel-based chart review conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain among a panel of physicians (neurologists, headache specialists, and pain specialists) who agreed to participate in patient studies and had treated ≥10 migraine patients in 2017. Eligible physicians extracted data for up to five adults with ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) who initiated a preventive treatment on or after 1 January 2013 and received physician care for ≥6 months after the date of the most recent preventive treatment initiation (index date). Based on the trajectory of migraine severity from the 1-month pre-index period to the 6-month post-index period, cohorts were classified as improved (converting from chronic to episodic or from chronic/episodic to <4 MMDs) or stable/worsened (remaining chronic/episodic or transforming from episodic to chronic) migraine. Migraine-related HRU and costs (2017 €) during the 6-month post-index period were compared between patients with improved vs. stable/worsened migraine.

RESULTS

Overall, 470 patient charts were analyzed, with 339 classified as improved migraine and 131 classified as stable/worsened migraine. After adjusting for within-physician correlation, country, sex, and presence of comorbidities before the index date, the improved migraine cohort had significantly fewer migraine-related physician office visits (-0.81; p < .001), emergency room/accident & emergency (ER/A&E) visits (-0.67; p < .001), and hospitalizations (-0.12; p < .001) in the 6-month post-index period vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. Consistent with HRU patterns, the adjusted migraine-related costs for physician office visits (-€42.23; p < .05), hospitalizations (-€215.56; p < .05), and total costs (-€396.81; p < .01) in the 6-month post-index period were significantly reduced for the improved migraine cohort vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Over a 6-month period following initiation of preventive migraine treatment, patients with improved migraine had significantly lower migraine-related HRU and costs than those with stable/worsened migraine.

MRI Evaluation of the Relationship Between Abnormalities in Vision-Related Brain Networks and Quality of Life in Patients with Migraine without Aura

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether migraine without aura (MwoA) can be partly attributed to abnormalities of vision-related brain networks (VBN) and whether these specific regional abnormalities affect the patients' quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

A total of 40 participants, including 20 MwoA patients and 20 healthy control volunteers, were enrolled. There were no significant differences in sex, age, educational qualifications and dominant hand between the two groups. Headache intensity and QoL were assessed by the Pain Number Evaluation Scale (NRS) and the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ 2.1), respectively. Resting state functional magnetic resonance imaging (rs-fMRI) and independent component analysis (ICA) were performed to determine and evaluate the VBN.

RESULTS

Three components were identified as consistent with the VBN in the template and recorded as N1, N2 and N3, respectively. The functional activity of the left primary visual cortex (N1), left culmen of cerebellum (N1), left lingual gyrus (N2), superior frontal gyrus (N2) and left posterior lateral prefrontal cortex (N3) in the MwoA group enhanced compared with the healthy control group. However, the functional activity of right middle occipital gyrus, left fusiform gyrus, right lingual gyrus, and right primary motor cortex in the N3 network weakened. Pearson correlation analysis showed that decline of attention to work and life (MSQ5) was positively associated with the functional activity of left primary visual cortex and left lingual gyrus. Canceling from work and daily life (MSQ8) was inversely associated with the functional activity of right primary motor cortex. The burden of feeling like others (MSQ13) and the overall decrease in QoL were both positively associated with the functional activity of right lingual gyrus.

CONCLUSION

MwoA patients showed abnormal VBN function, which was moderately correlated with decreased QoL. This study provides evidence for the precise prevention and treatment of migraine by neural regulation.