Evaluation of Patients with Insufficient Efficacy and/or Tolerability to Triptans for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Literature Review

Relative frequency, characteristics, and disease burden of patients with migraine unsuitable for triptan treatment: A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVE

This review was conducted to systematically identify evidence characterizing patients with migraine who are unsuitable for triptans.

BACKGROUND

Triptans are not suitable as first-line treatment for all patients with migraine due to contraindications, lack of efficacy, and/or poor tolerability. However, there is debate about the frequency and characteristics of these patients and the burden they experience.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and conference abstracts (2011-2022) were reviewed for evidence on patients with migraine unsuitable for triptans for any reason. Data from publications describing the frequency and characteristics of this group, as well as the clinical, humanistic, or economic burden of disease in this population, were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 1460 records screened, 29 publications met inclusion criteria. Persistence with triptans was low; 51%-66% of patients starting a new triptan did not refill it, and 43%-100% discontinued their initial triptan over 2 years. In one study, 14% of patients with migraine reported prior discontinuation/failure of ≥ 2 triptans due to inadequate efficacy or poor tolerability. Up to 15% of patients with migraine had triptan contraindications, and ≥ 20% of patients receiving triptans had contraindications. In four studies, 10%-44% of patients who tried triptans had insufficient response, although definitions varied. Patients who achieved a sufficient response typically did so with their first triptan; few became responders with additional triptans. Of patients who did not respond to one to two triptans and received another, 45% were dissatisfied with the final triptan. Approximately half of patients who tried two to three triptans had an insufficient response. Greater disability, impact of disease, and depression were reported in triptan discontinuers compared to those with sustained use. Worse quality of life scores and utility values were reported in triptan insufficient versus sufficient responders, as were greater migraine-related costs, work impairment, and health-care resource utilization.

CONCLUSION

The total population of patients unsuitable for triptans is uncertain, but the literature highlights a large group who cannot or do not persist with triptans, and current evidence suggests a high burden in this population and an unmet need for new therapeutic options. Further research is needed to determine the frequency of unsuitability for triptans more precisely and to assess the associated burden.

Acute treatment of migraine: quantifying the unmet need through real-world data in Italy

OBJECTIVE

This study is describing subjects with migraine interrupting or not receiving triptans for acute treatment and providing a national-level estimate of people who might benefit from different therapeutic approaches.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis using IQVIA Longitudinal Patient Database. Starting from 18 + years old individuals with migraine, we selected two cohorts: subjects with triptans prescriptions before and no triptans prescriptions after Index Date (triptan withdraw) and subjects without triptans prescriptions both before and after Index Date (no triptan prescriptions). Index Date was the first record of a health encounter for migraine in 2019. Individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD) within no triptan prescriptions group were also quantified.

RESULTS

Triptan withdraw and no triptan prescriptions cohorts numbered 605 and 3270, respectively, 5% and 29% of subjects with migraine. Mean age was 47 and 51 years respectively; women were more represented (~ 80%). Hypertension and thyroid disease were most frequent comorbidities; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were among most frequently recorded treatments. Subjects with CVD within no triptan prescriptions cohort were 621 and with triptan withdraw cohort subjects represented the basis to estimate those who might benefit from alternative options for the acute treatment of migraine, who were around 60,000 and accounted for 11% of subjects seeking primary care due to migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a real-word estimate of Italian people that might benefit from different therapeutic approaches as an alternative to triptans, which sometimes might be not effective and/or poorly tolerated. Such estimate should be intended as the lower limit of a wider range due to strict criteria adopted.

Trends in Triptan Usage in Korea: A Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Migraine presents a significant global health problem that emphasizes the need for efficient acute treatment options. Triptans, introduced in the early 1990s, have substantially advanced migraine management owing to their effectiveness compared to that of traditional medications. However, data on triptan use in migraine management from Asian countries, where migraines tend to have milder symptoms than those in European and North American countries, are limited. This study aimed to identify the trends in triptan usage in Korea.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort spanning from 2002 to 2019. Patients with migraine were identified using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes, and triptan prescriptions were evaluated annually in terms of quantity, pills per patient, and associated costs. The distribution of triptan prescriptions across different medical specialties was also examined. Factors contributing to the odds of triptan use were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

From 2002 to 2019, the total number of triptan tablets, prescriptions, and patients using triptans increased by 24.0, 17.1, and 13.6 times, respectively, with sumatriptan being the most frequently prescribed type of triptan. Additionally, the number of prescriptions and related costs have consistently increased despite stable pricing because of government regulation. By 2019, only approximately one-tenth of all patients with migraines had been prescribed triptans, although there was a notable increase in prescriptions over the study period. These prescription patterns varied according to the physician's specialty. After adjusting for patient-specific factors including age and sex, the odds of prescribing triptans were higher for neurologists than for internal medicine physicians (odds ratio 2.875, P < 0.001), while they were lower for general practitioners (odds ratio 0.220, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings revealed an increasing trend in triptan use among individuals with migraines in Korea, aligning with global usage patterns. Despite these increases, the overall prescription rate of triptans remains low, indicating potential underutilization and highlighting the need for improved migraine management strategies across all medical fields. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the use of triptans in treating migraines effectively.

Pharmacological investigation of genistein for its therapeutic potential against nitroglycerin-induced migraine headache

OBJECTIVES

Migraine, typically occurs on one side of the head, lasts for hours to days. Trigemino-vascular system (TVS) plays a vital role in pain generation, with neurogenic inflammation and oxidative stress playing key roles in its pathophysiology.

METHODS

This study aimed to investigate genistein's potential as anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidant agent in mitigating migraine pain. Genistein (20 and 50 mg/kg) was administered intraperitoneally (IP) to nitroglycerin (NTG; 10 mg/kg)-induced migraine model in rats. Behavioral analysis, antioxidant assay, immunohistochemistry (IHC), histopathological examination, ELISA, and RT-PCR were conducted to evaluate the antimigraine potential of genistein.

KEY FINDINGS

In-silico analysis showed genestien's ACE values of -4.8 to -9.2 Kcal/mol against selected protein targets. Genistein significantly reversed mechanical and thermal nociception, light phobicity, and head scratching; increased the intensities of GST, GSH, catalase; and down regulated lipid peroxidase (LPO) in cortex and trigeminal nucleus caudalis (TNC). It also reduced Nrf2, NF-kB, and IL6 expression, analyzed through IHC, improved histopathological features, and increased COX-2 and decreased PPAR-γ expressions, while RT-PCR analysis revealed increased PPAR-γ expressions in genistein-treated rats.

CONCLUSION

Genistein exhibited potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties in migraine treatment, acting through multifactorial mechanisms by modulating the expression of numerous proteins in the region cortex and TNC.

A 3-year follow-up study of outcomes associated with patterns of traditional acute and preventive migraine treatment: An administrative claims-based cohort study in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States.

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on long-term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010-December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011-December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added-on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT-persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine-specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow-up).

RESULTS

During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3-year follow-up, migraine-specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non-persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added-on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non-persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3-7 months).

CONCLUSION

Migraine-specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non-persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine.

Acute Treatment Patterns, Migraine Burden, and Healthcare Resource Use in People With Migraine: Results From the OVERCOME (EU) Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

The ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (OVERCOME) European Union (EU) is part of an overarching population-based study program that also includes the United States and Japan. Here, we report data on the migraine/severe headache burden and the use of acute medication and healthcare resources in Spain and Germany.

METHODS

OVERCOME (EU) was an online, non-interventional, cross-sectional survey conducted in adults in Spain and Germany between October 2020 and February 2021. A total migraine cohort was established based on health survey participants who reported headache/migraine in the last 12 months AND identified as having migraine based on modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition criteria OR self-reported physician diagnosis. Data were analyzed for the total migraine cohort and the subcohort with moderate to severe headache attacks, with average pain severity ≥ 5 points, pain duration ≥ 4 h, and at least moderate disability due to migraine [Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score ≥ 11] over the past 3 months.

RESULTS

Pain of moderate or severe intensity was the most frequent symptom in the total migraine cohort (n = 19,103/20,756; 92.0%). Proportions of participants reporting severe disability (MIDAS Grade IV), poorer quality of life (QoL; Migraine-Specific QoL Questionnaire), and higher interictal burden (Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4), generally increased with number of headache days (HDs)/month. Most participants (92.5%) reported current acute migraine/severe headache medication use, although only 39.0% were using triptans. In the moderate to severe attacks subcohort (n = 5547), 48.4% were using triptans, with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs the most common acute medication. The moderate to severe attacks subcohort also reported poorer QoL and greater pain and disability with increasing HDs/month, although severe interictal burden was reported for ~ 60% of participants regardless of HDs/month. Treatment satisfaction (six-item migraine Treatment Optimization Questionnaire) in those using triptans was generally poor in both total and subcohorts.

CONCLUSION

High migraine-related burden levels were reported, despite use of acute medication. Although triptans are recommended for moderate to severe migraine attacks in Spanish and German guidelines, less than half of participants were using triptans; treatment satisfaction in those using triptans was generally poor. New tailored treatment options may help address unmet needs in current acute treatment.

The Role of the Combination Paracetamol/Caffeine in Treatment of Acute Migraine Pain: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Thirty years ago, the first migraine-specific drugs (triptans) appeared. Today two new categories (gepants and ditans) are marketed for acute migraine treatment. That said, is there still a role for conventional therapy? The aim of the present narrative review is to provide an expert overview examining the possible role of the combination paracetamol/caffeine in treatment of acute migraine pain.

METHODS

To understand possible settings for more appropriate use of paracetamol/caffeine (1000 mg/130 mg) in treatment of acute migraine, a structured literature search was performed using the PubMed database by a panel of experts from major Italian headache centers; articles not referring to migraine pain were excluded from this review; review articles were prioritized.

RESULTS

Overall response, even to newer specific and selective trigeminal targeted drugs (TTTs), is not over 60%; thus, there is still room for conventional therapies in acute migraine treatment. The panel identified settings in which the use of paracetamol/caffeine combination to treat acute migraine attacks might offer benefit considering the consolidated use through years, despite the lack of studies directly addressing the efficacy of paracetamol/caffeine in the identified populations: subjects > 65 years of age; presence of cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities; TTTs non-responders; pregnancy and breastfeeding; subjects < 18 years of age; paracetamol/caffeine as add-on therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol is included in the World Health Organization (WHO) essential drug list and has a high level of popularity among patients. Caffeine enhances the analgesic effect of other drugs including paracetamol. In early treatment of acute migraine pain, prescribing physicians might consider using the paracetamol/caffeine combination among other options.

Results of a Web-Based Survey on 2565 Greek Migraine Patients in 2023: Demographic Data, Imposed Burden and Satisfaction to Acute and Prophylactic Treatments in the Era of New Treatment Options

Objective: The Greek Society of Migraine and Headache Patients conducted its third in-line population web-based survey in 2023 to ascertain if the burden of the disease and the patients' satisfaction with conventional and novel migraine therapies are changing compared to our previous findings from 2018 and 2020. Methods: The sampling process was based on a random call to participants to reply to a specific migraine-focused self-administered questionnaire, including 83 questions in Greek, which was distributed nationwide through the online research software SurveyMonkey. Results: We eventually enrolled 2565 patients, the majority of which were females. Our findings clearly demonstrate that migraine is still a burdensome condition. The degree of its impact on all aspects of productivity depends on the monthly frequency of migraine and the response rates to acute and prophylactic treatments. A total of 1029 (42.4%) of the patients had visited the emergency room mainly for unresponsiveness to acute treatments or aura-related symptoms. Triptans seem to be partly effective as acute therapies. OnabotulinumtoxinA seems to be effective for almost half of chronic migraine patients (43.9%) to report adequate satisfaction with this treatment (27.8% were "fairly happy", 10.6% were "very happy", and 5.5% were "extremely happy"). Due to their high rates of preventative effectiveness, most respondents treated with anti-CGRP Mabs expressed their optimism concerning their future while living with their migraine (88.25%), as well as towards further improvements in their quality of life (82.8%) status, mostly with fremanezumab. Conclusions: The patients recognize the usefulness of anti-CGRP Mabs in migraine prevention and consequently seem to be more optimistic than before about living with migraine. Considering the market change that is anticipated with the use of gepants and ditans, larger longitudinal population-based studies are warranted to further explore if the new era of migraine therapeutics might further lessen the burden of the disease.

Acute Treatment of Migraine: Expert Consensus Statements from the United Arab Emirates (UAE)

INTRODUCTION

Migraine, characterized by recurrent headaches and often accompanied by other symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light and sound, significantly impacts patients' quality of life (QoL) and daily functioning. The global burden of migraines is reflected not only in terms of reduced QoL but also in the form of increased healthcare costs and missed work or school days. While UAE (United Arab Emirates)-specific consensus-based recommendations for the effective use of preventive calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-based migraine therapies have been published previously, an absence of such regional guidance on the management of acute migraine represents a gap that needs to be urgently addressed.

METHODS

A task force of eight neurologists from the UAE with expertise in migraine management conducted a comprehensive literature search and developed a set of expert statements on the management of acute migraine that were specific to the UAE context. To ensure diverse perspectives are considered, a Delphi panel comprising 16 neurologists plus the task force members was set up. Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi survey method. Consensus was predefined as a median rating of 7 or higher without discordance (if > 25% of the Delphi panelists rate an expert statement as 3 or lower on the Likert scale). Expert statements achieving consensus were adopted.

RESULTS

The Modified Delphi method was used successfully to achieve consensus on all nine expert statements drafted by the task force. These consensus statements aim to provide a comprehensive guide for UAE healthcare professionals in treating acute migraine. The statements cover all aspects of acute migraine treatment, including what goals to set, the timing of treatment, treatment strategy to use in case of inadequate response to triptans, safety aspects of combining gepants for acute attacks with preventive CGRP-based therapies, special population (pregnant and pediatric patients) considerations, and the management of the most bothersome symptoms (MBS).

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting these consensus statements on the treatment of acute migraine can help enhance patient care, improve outcomes, and standardize treatment practices in the UAE. The collaborative effort of experts with diverse experiences in developing these consensus statements will strengthen the credibility and applicability of these statements to various healthcare settings in the country.

Reporting Quality and Risk of Bias Analysis of Published RCTs Assessing Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Migraine Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review

Objective: Phase II/III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are vulnerable to many types of bias beyond randomization. Insights into the reporting quality of RCTs involving migraine patients treated with monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide system (anti-CGRP MAbs) are currently lacking. Our aim was to analyze the reporting quality of phase II/III RCTs involving migraine patients treated with anti-CGRP MAbs. Methods: A systematic search was performed on the PubMed and EMBASE databases, according to PRISMA guidelines, for relevant RCTs in either episodic or chronic migraine prevention. Additionally, an adapted version of the 2010 CONSORT statement checklist was utilized. The ROBvis online tool was used to document the risk of bias. Results: From the initially identified 179 articles, we finally found 31 RCTs that were eligible for evaluation. The average CONSORT compliance was 88.7% (69.7-100%), while 93.5% (N = 29) of the articles had a compliance greater than 75%. Twenty-eight CONSORT items were reported in more than 75% of the articles. The average compliance of the analyzed RCTs was 93.9% for Galcanezumab, 91.3% for Fremanezumab, followed by 85.4% for Erenumab and Eptinezumab studies. Implementation of the ROB2 tool showed some concerning "missing information" arising from the inadequate reporting. Specifically, 50% of the studies (N = 16) were categorized as having inadequate information regarding the randomization process. Conclusions: Adequate reporting quality was disclosed in the evaluated RCTs with anti-CGRP MAbs in migraine prevention. However, some methodological issues need to be highlighted to be addressed in future studies assessing the efficacy of new molecules targeting CGRP or other candidate pathways implicated in migraine pathophysiology.

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of lasmiditan and CGRP-antagonists for the acute treatment of migraine in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes associated with the use of lasmiditan, rimegepant, ubrogepant, and zavegepant for the acute management of migraine headaches.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases from database inception to August 31, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the acute treatment of migraine. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of evidence using the CINeMA approach. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses (NMA) to summarise the evidence. Data were analyzed using R-4.3.1.

RESULTS

A total of 18 eligible studies including 10 different types of interventions with 22,429 migraine patients were included. NMA results showed that compared to ubrogepant (25 mg and 50 mg) and zavegepant, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits an elevated probability of achieving pain relief within a 2-hour interval. Similarly, relative to zavegepant, rimegepant (75 mg) and ubrogepant (50 mg and 100 mg) demonstrate an enhanced likelihood of sustaining pain relief over a 24-hour period. Furthermore, in contrast to ubrogepant (25 mg) and lasmiditan (50 mg), rimegepant (75 mg) presents a heightened probability of achieving freedom from photophobia within 2 h. Regarding safety, lasmiditan carries the highest risk of adverse events, which are associated with an increased incidence of adverse effects, including dizziness, somnolence, asthenia, paresthesia, and fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

In this NMA, a spectrum of evidence ranging from very low to high levels underscores the favorable efficacy and tolerability of rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 100 mg, positioning them as potential candidates for the acute management of migraine. Concurrently, lasmiditan (100 mg and 200 mg) exhibits notable efficacy, albeit accompanied by an increased susceptibility to adverse events. These findings should still be approached with caution, primarily due to the intrinsic limitations associated with indirect comparisons.

Clinical guidance for choosing the right pharmacotherapy for migraine attacks

INTRODUCTION

Migraine as headache attacks with autonomic symptoms is a serious condition and it is important to treat a single attack effectively in order to improve not only the patient's quality of life at a given moment but also to prevent the migraine from becoming a chronic one.

AREA COVERED

The article briefly presents the guidance in selecting the most appropriate pharmacological treatment of migraine attack, indicating a personalized approach to migraine patient.

EXPERT OPINION

In this short paper, we show the implementation of new drugs into everyday clinical practice. Good cooperation between the physician and the patient and having the patient's trust is one of the elements of a personalized therapeutic approach and the key to achieving satisfaction of both the patient and the doctor.

One-Year Consistent Safety, Utilization, and Efficacy Assessment of Remote Electrical Neuromodulation (REN) for Migraine Treatment

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a chronic neurological disorder causing severe pain and disability in more than a billion people worldwide. Ideal treatment should provide long-term efficacy with minimal side effects. Previous studies indicate that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) is an efficacious and safe treatment option for the acute treatment of migraine in clinical practice. This study examined long-term safety, utilization, and efficacy of REN during 12 consecutive usage months.

METHODS

Data from patients with migraine across the USA using REN to treat their migraine attacks were electronically collected from the Nerivio® device. All patients who used REN during 12 consecutive months were included, and data were compared across months. Safety was assessed by the number and type of adverse events. Utilization was measured by the number of monthly treatments. Efficacy was evaluated as consistent change in headache pain intensity, functional disability, and disappearance of associated symptoms from baseline to 2 h post treatment.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 409 people living with migraine who treated with REN for 12 consecutive months, performing a total of 39,531 treatments. The incidence of device-related adverse events (dAEs) was 1.96% (8/409), including two negligible (0.49%), five mild (1.22%), one moderate (0.24%), and no severe events. All patients continued treatment with REN despite dAEs. One-year average monthly utilization was 8.05 treatments (SD 1.15). Month-to-month utilization did not change during 12 months of consecutive use [F(4.895, 1997.204) = 2.014, p = 0.075, repeated-measures ANOVA]. One-year average efficacy showed 74.1% of users reported consistent 2-h pain relief, and 26.0% reported consistent pain freedom. Month-to-month pain relief and pain freedom did not change during 12 months of consecutive use [F(11, 1069) = 0.55, p = 0.873 and F(11, 1295) = 0.69, p = 0.750 respectively; generalized linear mixed model analysis].

CONCLUSION

REN is a safe and well-tolerated acute migraine treatment, with stable efficacy and utilization over 1 year, making it an advantageous non-drug option for the long-term management of this chronic disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05760638.

Statistically Optimized Polymeric Buccal Films of Eletriptan Hydrobromide and Itopride Hydrochloride: An In Vivo Pharmacokinetic Study

A migraine is a condition of severe headaches, causing a disturbance in the daily life of the patient. The current studies were designed to develop immediate-release polymeric buccal films of Eletriptan Hydrobromide (EHBR) and Itopride Hydrochloride (ITHC) to improve their bioavailability and, hence, improve compliance with the patients of migraines and its associated symptoms. The prepared films were evaluated for various in vitro parameters, including surface morphology, mechanical strength, disintegration test (DT), total dissolving time (TDT), drug release and drug permeation, etc., and in vivo pharmacokinetic parameters, such as area under curve (AUC), mean residence time (MRT), half-life (t1/2), time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax), and time to reach maximum concentration (Cmax). The outcomes have indicated the successful preparation of the films, as SEM has confirmed the smooth surface and uniform distribution of drugs throughout the polymer matrix. The films were found to be mechanically stable as indicated by folding endurance studies. Furthermore, the optimized formulations showed a DT of 13 ± 1 s and TDT of 42.6 ± 0.75 s, indicating prompt disintegration as well as the dissolution of the films. Albino rabbits were used for in vivo pharmacokinetics, and the outcomes were evident of improved pharmacokinetics. The drug was found to rapidly permeate across the buccal mucosa, leading to increased bioavailability of the drug: Cmax of 130 and 119 ng/mL of ITHC and EHBR, respectively, as compared to 96 (ITHC) and 90 ng/mL (EHBR) of oral solution. The conclusion can be drawn that possible reasons for the enhanced bioavailability could be the increased surface area in the form of buccal films, its rapid disintegration, and faster dissolution, which led toward the rapid absorption of the drug into the blood stream.

A Comprehensive Review of the Mechanism, Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Ubrogepant in the Treatment of Migraine

Ubrogepant is an innovative medication designed for the acute treatment of migraine, a debilitating neurological condition that profoundly impairs quality of life, productivity, and social interactions. This comprehensive review assesses the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and mechanism of action of ubrogepant through a rigorous methodology, including an in-depth literature review from reputable databases like PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. Classified as a calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, ubrogepant has emerged as a potential revolutionary medication for migraine treatment. CGRP is a peptide integral to migraine pathophysiology, and its blockade has demonstrated great therapeutic potential. Unlike triptans, known for their cardiovascular risks, ubrogepant lacks vasoconstrictive properties, making it a safer alternative for a broader patient population. Ubrogepant offers significant potential for pain relief, symptom reduction, and restoration of normal function during a migraine attack, and it outperforms placebo in terms of efficacy. It also presents favorable safety, with generally mild adverse drug events (ADEs), such as nausea, dizziness, and somnolence, similar to placebo effects. Consistent results from clinical trials confirm its tolerability, with minor ADEs and no safety alerts for the tested doses, indicating that ubrogepant is a safe and well-tolerated option for migraine treatment. As an effective oral medication, ubrogepant could be an alternative to traditional acute migraine treatments. Its benefits include a unique mechanism of action, rapid onset, and favorable safety profile. However, specific contraindications, such as hypersensitivity, severe hepatic impairment, concurrent use of CYP3A4 inhibitors, pregnancy or breastfeeding, and uncontrolled hypertension, require caution or avoidance of ubrogepant. Despite these limitations, ubrogepant signals a promising new direction in migraine therapeutics.

Inhibition of persistent sodium current reduces spreading depression-evoked allodynia in a mouse model of migraine with aura

ABSTRACT

We investigated the efficacy of inhibiting persistent Na + currents (I NaP ) in acute rodent models of migraine with aura. Cortical spreading depression (SD) is a slow wave of neuronal and glial depolarization that underlies the migraine aura. Minimally invasive optogenetic SD (opto-SD) causes periorbital mechanical allodynia in mice, suggesting SD activates trigeminal nociceptors. Persistent Na + currents contribute to neuronal intrinsic excitability and have been implicated in peripheral and cortical excitation. We examined a preferential inhibitor of I NaP, GS-458967, on SD-induced periorbital allodynia, SD susceptibility, and formalin-induced peripheral pain. Periorbital mechanical allodynia was tested in male and female Thy1-ChR2-YFP mice after a single opto-SD event using manual von Frey monofilaments. GS-458967 (1 mg/kg, s.c.) or vehicle was dosed immediately after opto-SD induction, and allodynia was tested 1 hour later. The electrical SD threshold and KCl-induced SD frequency were examined in the cortex in male Sprague-Dawley rats after 1 hour pretreatment with GS-458967 (3 mg/kg, s.c.) or vehicle. Effects of GS-458967 (0.5-5 mg/kg, p.o.) on spontaneous formalin hind paw behavior and locomotion were also examined in male CD-1 mice. GS-458967 suppressed opto-SD-induced periorbital allodynia and decreased susceptibility to SD. GS-458967 also diminished early and late phase formalin-induced paw-licking behavior with early phase paw licking responding to lower doses. GS-458967 up to 3 mg/kg had no impact on locomotor activity. These data provide evidence that I NaP inhibition can reduce opto-SD-induced trigeminal pain behavior and support I NaP inhibition as an antinociceptive strategy for both abortive and preventive treatment of migraine.

Predicting Sumatriptan Responsiveness Based on Structural Connectivity in Patients Newly Diagnosed With Migraine

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We aimed to determine whether structural brain connectivity is significantly associated with the response to sumatriptan in patients with migraine.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled patients with newly diagnosed migraine who underwent brain diffusion-tensor imaging (DTI) at the time of diagnosis, with regular follow-up for at least 6 months after the initial diagnosis. Patients were classified into good- and poor-responder groups according to their response to sumatriptan. We analyzed the structural connectivity using DTI by applying graph theory using DSI Studio software.

RESULTS

We enrolled 59 patients (35 good responders and 24 poor responders) and 30 healthy controls. Global structural connectivity differed significantly between patients with migraine and healthy controls, while local structural connectivity differed significantly between good and poor responders. The betweenness centrality was lower in good responders than in poor responders in the left lateral geniculate thalamic nucleus (26.078 vs. 41.371, p=0.039) and right medial mediodorsal magnocellular thalamic nucleus (60.856 vs. 90.378, p=0.021), whereas was higher in good responders in the left lateral pulvinar thalamic nucleus (98.365 vs. 50.347, p=0.003) and right medial pulvinar thalamic nucleus (216.047 vs. 156.651, p=0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that structural connectivity in patients with migraine differed from that in healthy controls. Moreover, the local structural connectivity varied with the response to sumatriptan, which suggests that structural connectivity is a useful factor for predicting how a patient will respond to sumatriptan.

Triptan non-response in specialized headache care: cross-sectional data from the DMKG Headache Registry

BACKGROUND

Triptans are effective for many migraine patients, but some do not experience adequate efficacy and tolerability. The European Headache Federation (EHF) has proposed that patients with lack of efficacy and/or tolerability of ≥ 2 triptans ('triptan resistance') could be considered eligible for treatment with the novel medications from the ditan and gepant groups. There is little data on the frequency of 'triptan resistance'.

METHODS

We used patient self-report data from the German Migraine and Headache Society (DMKG) Headache Registry to assess triptan response and triptan efficacy and/or tolerability failure.

RESULTS

A total of 2284 adult migraine patients (females: 85.4%, age: 39.4 ± 12.8 years) were included. 42.5% (n = 970) had failed ≥ 1 triptan, 13.1% (n = 300) had failed ≥ 2 triptans (meeting the EHF definition of 'triptan resistance'), and 3.9% (n = 88) had failed ≥ 3 triptans. Compared to triptan responders (current use, no failure, n = 597), triptan non-responders had significantly more severe migraine (higher frequency (p < 0.001), intensity (p < 0.05), and disability (p < 0.001)), that further increased with the level of triptan failure. Responders rates were highest for nasal and oral zolmitriptan, oral eletriptan and subcutaneous sumatriptan.

CONCLUSION

In the present setting (specialized headache care in Germany), 13.1% of the patients had failed ≥ 2 triptans. Triptan failure was associated with increased migraine severity and disability, emphasizing the importance of establishing an effective and tolerable acute migraine medication. Acute treatment optimization might include switching to one of the triptans with the highest responder rates and/or to a different acute medication class.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The DMKG Headache Registry is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS 00021081).

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.

The Neuropsychiatric Safety Profile of Lasmiditan: A Comparative Disproportionality Analysis with Triptans

Migraine constitutes the world's second-leading cause of disability. Triptans, as serotonin 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, remain the first-line treatment, despite discouraged use in individuals at high cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan, a selective lipophilic 5-HT1F agonist without vasoconstrictive effects, is an emerging option. We aimed to investigate the safety profile of lasmiditan in the WHO pharmacovigilance database (VigiBase®) using a comparative disproportionality analysis with triptans. VigiBase® was queried for all reports involving lasmiditan and triptans. Disproportionality analyses relied on the calculation of the information component (IC), for which 95% confidence interval (CI) lower bound positivity was required for signal detection. We obtained 826 reports involving lasmiditan. Overall, 10 adverse drug reaction classes were disproportionately reported with triptans, while only neurological (IC 1.6; 95% CI 1.5-1.7) and psychiatric (IC 1.5; 95% CI 1.3-1.7) disorders were disproportionately reported with lasmiditan. Sedation, serotonin syndrome, euphoric mood, and autoscopy had the strongest signals. When compared with triptans, 19 out of 22 neuropsychiatric signals persisted. The results of our analysis provide a more precise semiology of the neuropsychiatric effects of lasmiditan, with symptoms such as autoscopy and panic attacks. The cardiovascular adverse drug reaction risk with triptans was confirmed. In contrast, caution is warranted with lasmiditan use in patients with neurological or psychiatric comorbidities or serotonin syndrome risk. Our study was hindered by pharmacovigilance flaws, and further studies should help in validating these results. Our findings suggest that lasmiditan is a safe alternative for migraine treatment, especially when the neuropsychiatric risk is outweighed by the cardiovascular burden.

Efficacy of rimegepant for the acute treatment of migraine based on triptan treatment experience: Pooled results from three phase 3 randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc analysis from three phase 3 treatment trials of rimegepant 75 mg - an oral small molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist for acute and preventive treatment of migraine - assessed efficacy in adults with migraine based on triptan treatment experience.

METHODS

Participants were assigned to one of four groups based on triptan treatment experience: insufficient response (e.g. lack of efficacy and/or poor tolerability) to 1 triptan, insufficient response to ≥2 triptans, current triptan users, and triptan-naïve participants. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and most bothersome symptom freedom at two hours postdose.

RESULTS

In the three trials (N = 3507; rimegepant n = 1749, placebo n = 1758), 1235 (35.2%) participants had a history of insufficient response to 1 triptan (n = 910 [25.9%]) or ≥2 triptans (n = 325 [9.3%]), and 2272 (64.8%) had no history of insufficient response to triptans (current use = 595 [17.0%], naïve = 1677 [47.8%]). Rimegepant was effective on the co-primary endpoints in all subgroups (p ≤ 0.013), except for freedom from the most bothersome symptom in the triptan-naïve group (p = 0.06). No differences on co-primary endpoints were found in pairwise comparisons of rimegepant-treated participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Rimegepant was effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults with a history of insufficient response to 1 or ≥2 triptans and in current triptan users. Efficacy on co-primary endpoints did not differ based on the number of insufficient triptan responses.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757.

Place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans, non-responders and contraindications to triptans and possible combination therapies

Background: For many years triptans have been the cornerstone of acute migraine treatment. Nevertheless, treatment with triptans may not always be initiated due to contraindications (seen in approximately one fifth of patients) or inadequate response (seen in approximately one third of patients). New acute therapies, including 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)_1F receptor agonists, also known as ditans (lasmiditan) and small molecule antagonists of the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, also known as gepants (rimegepant and ubrogepant), may be an effective alternative. Methods: We searched Pubmed for keywords, summarized the literature and provided a comprehensive review on the place of next generation acute migraine specific treatments among triptans. Results and conclusion: Post-hoc analyses reported no differences in efficacy of gepants/ditans between responders and non-responders to triptans, but research is hampered by lack of consensus on the definition of non-responder. Due to (partially) overlapping mechanisms of action, it remains unknown whether combination therapy with lasmiditan, gepants and triptans will have added value over monotherapy. Preclinical studies and post-hoc analyses cautiously indicate that these new drugs are safe for patients with cardiovascular risk factors. However, long-term studies are needed to prove cardiovascular safety. The risk of developing medication overuse headache may differ between triptans, ditans and gepants, but further studies are needed to confirm this difference. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials of acute therapies and combinations of therapies are needed to determine their place in migraine treatment among established therapies.

Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings

Background

In the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods

Data included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II–IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings.

Results

Across 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9–45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant.

Conclusions

The efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting.

350/350 words

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01440-w.

Acute Medication Use in Patients With Migraine Treated With Monoclonal Antibodies Acting on the CGRP Pathway: Results From a Multicenter Study and Proposal of a New Index

Introduction

Assessing the impact of migraine preventive treatments on acute medication consumption is important in clinical evaluation. The number of acute medication intakes per each monthly migraine day (MMD) could provide insights on migraine burden and represent a new proxy of treatment effectiveness in clinical trials and real-life studies. We evaluated the effect of monoclonal antibodies acting on calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway on the consumption of migraine acute medication in real-life.

Methods

In two headache centers in Prague (CZ), we included and followed up to 6 months consecutive patients treated with MoAbs acting on CGRP (erenumab or fremanezumab). For each month of treatment, we reported monthly drug intake (MDI) in doses of any medication, migraine-specific (MS), and non-migraine-specific (non-MS) medications, and computed a ratio between MMDs and MDI, i.e., Migraine Medication Index (MMI) for MS and non-MS medications.

Results

We included 90 patients (91.1% women) with a median age of 47 [interquartile range (IQR) 42–51] years; 81 (90.0%) treated with erenumab and 9 (10.0%) with fremanezumab. Median MMDs decreased from 11 (IQR 8–14) at baseline to 4 (IQR 2–5) at Month 3 (p &lt; 0.001 vs. baseline) and 3 (IQR 2–6) at Month 6 (p &lt; 0.001 vs. baseline). Median MDI decreased from 15 drug intakes (IQR 11–20) at baseline to four drug intakes (IQR 2–7) at Month 3 (p &lt; 0.001) and four drug intakes (IQR 2–7) at Month 6 (p &lt; 0.001).The corresponding MDIs for MS medications were 10 (IQR 6–14) at baseline, 3 (IQR 1–5, p &lt; 0.001) at Month 3, and 2 (IQR 0–4, p &lt; 0.001) at Month 6. Monthly drug intakes for non-MS medications were 4 (IQR 0–9) at baseline, 1 (IQR 0–3, p &lt; 0.001) at Month 3 and at Month 6.Median MMI decreased from 1.32 (IQR 1.11–1.68) at baseline to 1.00 (IQR 1.00–1.50, p &lt; 0.001) at Month 3 and 1.00 (IQR 1.00–1.34, p &lt; 0.001) at Month 6.

Conclusions

We confirmed that MoAbs acting on CGRP pathway decrease acute migraine medication consumption. We proposed a new index that can be easily applied in clinical practice to quantify migraine burden and its response to acute medication. Our index could help optimizing migraine acute treatment in clinical practice.

New Oral Drugs for Migraine

Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disorder, with several manifestations, of which pain is just one. Despite its worldwide prevalence, there remains a paucity of targeted and effective treatments for the condition, leaving many of those affected underserved by available treatments. Work over the last 30+ years has recently led to the emergence of the first targeted acute and preventive treatments in our practice since the triptan era in the early 1990s, which are changing the landscape of migraine treatment. These include the monoclonal antibodies targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide or its receptor. Evolving work on novel therapeutic targets, as well as continuing to exploit drugs used in other disorders that may also have a therapeutic effect in migraine, is likely to lead to more and more treatments being able to be offered to migraineurs. Future work involves the development of agents that lack vasoconstrictive effects, such as lasmiditan, do not contribute to medication overuse, such as the gepants, and do not interact with other drugs that may be used for the disorder, as well as agents that can act both acutely and preventively, thereby utilising the quantum between acute and preventive drug effects which has been demonstrated with different migraine drugs before. Here we discuss the evolution of oral migraine treatments over the last 5 years, including those that have gained regulatory approval and reached clinical practice, those in development and potential other targets for the future.

The burden of medication overuse headache and patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

A synthesis of real-world discontinuation and switching patterns among triptan users and rates of acute medication use among patients with medication overuse headache (MOH) is needed to better understand the burden among patients with migraine. The study objectives were to: (1) synthesize rates of switching and discontinuation from triptans; (2) characterize acute medication use among patients with MOH; and (3) describe the associated burden.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted, under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review guidelines, using MEDLINE/EMBASE from database inception to July 2019. The search strategy targeted studies of adults with migraine, and included terms related to migraine and its treatment. Continuous variables were summarized using means, standard deviations, and ranges. Dichotomous and categorical variables were summarized using the number and proportion of individuals.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included; seven describing patterns of switching and discontinuation among triptan users, and 13 characterizing triptan overuse among patients with MOH. High rates of switching to non-specific acute medications and low two-year retention rates were reported; among US samples switching to opioids at the first refill (18.2%) or after 1-year (15.5%) was frequent. Compared to persistent use of triptans, switchers experienced greater headache related impact and either no improvement or increased headache-related disability. Rates of medication overuse by agent among patients with MOH varied greatly across the included studies, and only one study described factors associated with the risk of MOH (e.g. duration of medication overuse). Medication agent, increased headache frequency (p = .008), and increased disability (p = .045) were associated with unsuccessful withdrawal; patients overusing triptans were more successful at withdrawal than those overusing opioids or combination analgesics (P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence summarized here highlights that rates of WCS are low and many patients turn to other acute medication at their first refill. Patients may experience no improvement in disability when switching from one triptan agent to another, or experience increasing disability and/or increasing migraine frequency when turning to traditional acute treatment for migraine. Variability in health care settings, patient severity, and study design contributed to heterogeneity across the synthesis.

Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus oral preventive medications among migraine patients: A US claims database study

Background:

Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway, was developed specifically for preventive treatment of migraine.

Objective:

To compare the real-world effectiveness of erenumab and non-specific oral migraine preventive medication (OMPM) on acute medication usage and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among migraine patients.

Methods:

This retrospective US claims analysis included patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab (May 01, 2018 and September 30, 2019) or OMPM (May 01, 2016 and October 31, 2017). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method with stratification. Acute medication usage, HCRU, and a composite endpoint of 1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, 2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or 3) emergency room visit with a primary migraine diagnosis were assessed 6 months post-treatment initiation.

Results:

Following PS matching, both cohorts included 2,343 patients. At 6 months, erenumab was associated with significantly less acute medication usage versus OMPM, including number of types of acute medications used, number of claims per person, and proportion of patients using acute medication. HCRU and number of composite events were also significantly lower among erenumab users.

Conclusion:

Erenumab is more effective than OMPM at reducing acute medication usage and HCRU among migraine patients.

Trial registration:

N/A.

STOP 301: A Phase 3, open-label study of safety, tolerability, and exploratory efficacy of INP104, Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD® ) of dihydroergotamine mesylate, over 24/52 weeks in acute treatment of migraine attacks in adult patients

Objective

To report the safety, tolerability, exploratory efficacy, and patient acceptability of INP104 for the acute treatment of migraine from the Phase 3 STOP 301 trial.

Background

Dihydroergotamine (DHE) has long been used to treat migraine, but intravenous administration is invasive, frequently associated with adverse events (AEs), and not suitable for at‐home administration. INP104 is an investigational drug device that delivers DHE mesylate to the upper nasal space using a Precision Olfactory Delivery technology and was developed to overcome the shortcomings of available DHE products.

Methods

STOP 301 was an open‐label, 24‐week safety study, with a 28‐week extension period. After a 28‐day screening period where patients used their “best usual care” to treat migraine attacks, patients were given INP104 (1.45 mg) to self‐administer nasally with self‐recognized attacks. The primary objective of this study was to assess safety and tolerability, with a specific focus on nasal mucosa and olfactory function. Exploratory objectives included efficacy assessments of migraine measures and a patient acceptability questionnaire.

Results

A total of 360 patients entered the 24‐week treatment period, with 354 patients dosing at least once. INP104‐related treatment‐emergent AEs were reported by 36.7% (130/354) of patients, and 6.8% (24/354) discontinued treatment due to AEs over 24 weeks. No new safety signals were observed following delivery to the upper nasal space. Pain freedom, the most bothersome symptom freedom, and pain relief at 2 h post‐INP104 were self‐reported by 38.0% (126/332), 52.1% (173/332), and 66.3% (167/252) of patients, respectively. A low recurrence rate at 24 and 48 h was observed (7.1% [9/126] and 14.3% [18/126], respectively). Most patients found INP104 easy to use and preferred it over their current therapy.

Conclusions

INP104 has the potential to deliver rapid symptom relief, without injection, that is well tolerated and suitable for outpatient use. Results suggest INP104 may be a promising treatment for patients with migraine.

Revised guidelines of the French headache society for the diagnosis and management of migraine in adults. Part 2: Pharmacological treatment

The French Headache Society proposes updated French guidelines for the management of migraine. This article presents the second part of the guidelines, which is focused on the pharmacological treatment of migraine, including both the acute treatment of attacks and the prophylaxis of episodic migraine as well as chronic migraine with and without medication overuse. The specific situations that can be encountered in women with migraine are also discussed, including pregnancy, menstrual migraine, contraception and hormonal replacement therapy.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Effectiveness of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization as migraine prevention in the United States

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common neurological disease that can have a substantial impact on patients' lives and on society. Erenumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, was specifically developed for migraine prevention. The efficacy of erenumab has been established in several clinical trials; however, the real-world comparative effectiveness of erenumab has not been fully investigated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and health care resource utilization (HCRU) among patients with migraine in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective US claims analysis (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database) evaluated patients aged at least 18 years diagnosed with migraine who initiated erenumab or onabotulinumtoxinA between May 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019 (index date: first erenumab/onabotulinumtoxinA claim). Cohorts were matched 1:1 using the propensity score (PS) method (greedy match with caliper = 0.1). Stratification was performed based on gender, chronic migraine without aura diagnosis, onabotulinumtoxinA use, and acute/preventive drug use. The impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on acute medication usage and HCRU was assessed in the 6-month post-index period. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of erenumab and onabotulinumtoxinA on a composite endpoint of: (1) outpatient visit with a migraine diagnosis and associated acute medication claim, (2) hospital admission with a primary migraine diagnosis, or (3) emergency department visit with a primary migraine diagnosis. PS-matched data were used for comparative analyses; logistic regression with covariate adjustment was used for dichotomous variables, and a negative binomial model was used for count variables, with odds ratios or rate ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs calculated. RESULTS: Following stratified PS matching, 1,338 patients were included in both cohorts. At 6 months, the adjusted average number of claims per person for any acute medication was significantly lower in the erenumab cohort (1.13 vs 1.29 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.80-0.96; P = 0.0069), although the difference in the number of claims for triptans and barbiturates was statistically nonsignificant. The adjusted average number of all-cause and migraine-specific visits per person to health care providers was generally lower in the erenumab cohort compared with the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort. Patients in the erenumab cohort had a significantly lower number of composite events (0.44 vs 0.69 in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; RR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.56-0.71; P < 0.0001). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of patients with any of the 3 composite events was lower in the erenumab cohort (31.7% vs 44.3% in the onabotulinumtoxinA cohort; OR = 0.59; 95% CI = 0.49-0.70; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective claims analysis study, erenumab significantly reduced acute medication usage (opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; any acute medication when analyzed together) and HCRU to a greater extent than onabotulinumtoxinA. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novartis Pharma AG. Novartis employees contributed to the study design, analysis of the data, and the decision to publish the results. Fang, Abdrabboh, Glassberg, Vo, and Ferraris are employed by Novartis. Zhou and Shen are employed by KMK Consulting, Inc., which received funding from Novartis to conduct the study. Tepper reports grants from Allergan, Amgen, ElectroCore, Eli Lilly, Lundbeck, Neurolief, Novartis, Satsuma, and Zosano, outside the submitted work; personal fees from Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, American Headache Society, Thomas Jefferson University, Aeon, Align Strategies, Allergan/AbbVie, Alphasights, Amgen, Aperture Venture Partners, Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada, Axsome Therapeutics, Becker Pharmaceutical Consulting, BioDelivery Sciences International, Biohaven, ClearView Healthcare Partners, CoolTech, CRG, Currax, Decision Resources, DeepBench, DRG, Eli Lilly, Equinox, ExpertConnect, GLG, Guidepoint Global Healthcare Consultancy Group, Health Science Communications, HMP Communications, Impel, InteractiveForums, M3 Global Research, Magellan Rx Management, Medicxi, Navigant Consulting, Neurorelief, Nordic BioTech, Novartis, Pulmatrix, Reckner Healthcare, Relevale, SAI MedPartners, Satsuma, Slingshot Insights, Spherix Global Insights, Sudler and Hennessey, Synapse Medical Communications, System Analytic, Teva, Theranica, Thought Leader Select, Trinity Partners, XOC, Zosano, Krog and Partners, and Lundbeck, outside the submitted work; and CME honoraria from American Academy of Neurology, American Headache Society, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Diamond Headache Clinic, Elsevier, Forefront Collaborative, Hamilton General Hospital, Ontario, Canada, Headache Cooperative of New England, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Inova, Medical Learning Institute PeerView, Medical Education Speakers Network, Miller Medical Communications, North American Center for CME, Physicians' Education Resource, Rockpointe, ScientiaCME, WebMD/Medscape. The abstract and poster of these results were presented at The Migraine Trust Virtual Symposium (MTIS), October 3-9, 2020.