Comparative Effectiveness and Tolerability of the Pharmacology of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide and Its Receptor for the Prevention of Chronic Migraine: a Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Changes in Use of Migraine Medications, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Associated Direct Costs Over 12 Months Following Initiation of Erenumab: A US Retrospective Real-World Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Erenumab-aooe is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Recent publications have evaluated migraine medication use during the 6 months after starting erenumab, but longer-term follow-up data are limited. The objective of this study was to describe 12-month medication use and changes in healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and associated direct costs among patients initiating erenumab.

METHODS

We identified adult patients with an erenumab claim in the Merative MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Databases from May 2018 through September 2019. Eligible patients had ≥ 12 months of continuous medical and pharmacy coverage before (pre-index period) and after (post-index period) the index date (first erenumab claim) in addition to pre-index evidence of migraine. Patients were stratified by post-index-period adherence to erenumab, defined as ≥ 80% of days covered (adherent) or < 80% of days covered (non-adherent). Outcomes were measured pre- and post-index, and differences between these periods were described.

RESULTS

Among 7528 eligible patients, the mean (standard deviation) age was 45.1 (11.4) years and 85.4% were female; 38.5% of patients were adherent to erenumab. Most patients used acute or traditional migraine-preventive medications pre-index, with reductions in use observed post-index (acute medication was used by 95.6% of patients pre-index, compared to 92.3% post-index; traditional preventive medication was used by 89.6% of patients pre-index, compared to 81.9% post-index). Reductions were observed for HRU of emergency room visits (- 3.8%) and brain- and other head-imaging studies (- 7.5%). Overall costs associated with acute and traditional preventive medications were reduced (- $764), but costs for HRU increased slightly ($76). When stratifying by adherence and combining costs for acute and traditional preventive medications and HRU, adherent patients had cost decreases (- $1947), while non-adherent patients had cost increases ($101).

CONCLUSION

Most patients initiating erenumab had prior use of acute and traditional migraine-preventive therapies. The reduction in acute and traditional migraine-preventive medication use and HRU over the 12-month follow-up supports the long-term clinical benefits of erenumab in the real-world setting.

Effectiveness and safety of pharmacological prophylaxis for chronic migraine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic migraine (CM) significantly impacts both the physical and mental health of patients. Current studies on the safety and effectiveness of different pharmacological prophylaxis interventions for CM are limited. To address this gap, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank the efficacy and safety of various drugs in preventing CM.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched four databases from their inception to August 1, 2023, to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subsequently, they performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias. A NMA was then performed. Continuous outcomes and binary outcomes were displayed as weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR), respectively, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank each intervention separately.

RESULTS

24 RCTs involving 8789 patients were included. Compared to placebo, Botulinum toxin A demonstrated the most significant effect in reducing the monthly migraine days for CM patients (MD = 3.88, 95% CI 0.48, 7.28); in terms of improving the response rate by a 50% reduction in monthly migraine days, Topiramate (RR = 50.06, 95% CI 3.18, 787.30) was the most effective; there was no statistically significant difference between all preventive drugs and placebo in improving the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) score; in terms of the incidence of adverse events, Eptinezumab (RR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.8, 1.54) exhibited the highest safety profile.

CONCLUSION

Among all the drugs for the preventive drugs for CM, Botulinum toxin A has the best efficacy and safety profile, closely followed by calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs).

Comparative effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: A multicenter, real-world study in Taiwan

OBJECTIVE

To compare the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and onabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine (CM) patients.

METHODS

This multicenter study involved retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinumtoxinA, including difficult-to-treat (DTT) patients (i.e., ≥3 preventive failures). Treatment outcomes were determined at 6 months based on prospective headache diaries and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS).

RESULTS

The study included 316 (55 M/261F, mean age 44.4 ± 13.5 years) and 333 (61 M/272F, mean age 47.9 ± 13.4 years) CM patients treated with CGRP mAbs or onabotulinbumtoxinA, respectively. At 6 months, CGRP mAb treatment was associated with a greater decrease in monthly migraine days (MMDs) (-13.0 vs. -8.7 days/month, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% responder rate (RR) (74.7% vs. 50.7%, p < 0.001) compared with onabotulinumtoxinA injections. The findings were consistent in DTT patients (-13.0 vs. -9.1 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 73.9% vs. 50.3%, p < 0.001) or those with medication-overuse headache (MOH) (-13.3 vs. -9.0 MMDs, p < 0.001; ≥50% RR: 79.0% vs. 51.6%, p < 0.001). Besides, patients receiving CGRP mAbs had greater improvement (-42.2 vs. -11.8, p < 0.001) and a higher ≥50% RR (62.0% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.001) in MIDAS scores and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) (6.0% vs. 21.0%, p < 0.001). However, none of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter, real-world study, CGRP mAbs were more effective than onabotulinumtoxinA in CM patients, even in DTT or MOH patients. All of these injectables were well tolerated. Further prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

[Migraine treatment consensus document of the Spanish Society of Neurology (SEN), Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (SEMFYC), Society of Primary Care Medicine (SEMERGEN) and Spanish Association of Migraine and Headache (AEMICE) on migraine treatment]

Migraine is a disease with a high prevalence and incidence, in addition to being highly disabling, causing a great impact on the patient's quality of life at a personal, family and work level, but also social, given its high expense due to its direct (care) and indirect (presenteeism and work absenteeism) costs. The multiple and recent developments in its pathophysiological knowledge and in its therapy require updating and, therefore, in this article the Spanish scientific societies most involved in its study and treatment (SEN, SEMFYC and SEMERGEN), together with the Association Spanish Association for Patients with Migraine and other Headaches (AEMICE), we have developed these updated care recommendations. We reviewed the treatment of migraine attacks, which consisted mainly of the use of NSAIDs and triptans, to which ditans and gepants have been added. We also discuss preventive treatment consisting of oral preventive drugs, botulinum toxin, and treatments that block the action of calcitonin-related peptide (CGRP). Finally, we emphasize that pharmacological treatments must be complementary to carrying out general measures consisting of identifying and managing/deletion the precipitating factors of the attacks and the chronicizing factors, controlling the comorbidities of migraine and eliminating analgesic overuse.

Utility of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Chronic Daily Headache Prophylaxis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of chronic daily headaches (CDH) remains challenging due to the limited efficacy of standard prophylactic pharmacological measures. Several studies have reported that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can effectively treat chronic headaches. The objective was to determine the utility of rTMS for immediate post-treatment and sustained CDH prophylaxis.

RECENT FINDINGS

All procedures were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases were searched for controlled clinical trials that have tested the efficacy of rTMS on populations with CDH. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the 'meta' package in R to examine the post- vs. pre-rTMS changes in standardized headache intensity and frequency compared to sham-control conditions. Thirteen trials were included with a combined study population of N = 538 patients with CDH (rTMS, N = 284; Sham, N = 254). Patients exposed to rTMS had significantly reduced standardized CDH intensity and frequency in the immediate post-treatment period (Hedges' g = -1.16 [-1.89, -0.43], p = 0.002 and Δ = -5.07 [-10.05, -0.11], p = 0.045 respectively). However, these effects were sustained marginally in the follow-up period (Hedges' g = -0.43 [-0.76, -0.09], p = 0.012 and Δ = -3.33 [-5.52, -1.14], p = 0.003). Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed, at least partially driven by variations in rTMS protocols. Despite the observed clinically meaningful and statistically significant benefits in the immediate post-treatment period, the prophylactic effects of rTMS on CDH do not seem to sustain with discontinuation. Thus, the cost-effectiveness of the routine use of rTMS for CDH prophylaxis remains questionable.

REGISTRATION

Protocol preregistered in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021250100).

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.

Efficacy of migraine prophylaxis treatments for treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Migraine headache is a significant health problem affecting patients' psychological well-being and quality of life. Several network meta-analyses (NMAs) have compared the efficacy of migraine prophylaxis medications. However, some have focused exclusively on oral medications, while others were limited to injectable medications. Moreover, none of these NMAs conducted a stratified analysis between treatment-naïve patients and those with prior treatment failure. Therefore, this systematic review and NMA will compare the efficacy among all treatments for migraine prophylaxis, stratified by the treatment status of patients (ie, treatment-naïve and previous treatment failure).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Randomised-controlled trials that included patients with chronic or episodic migraine, assessed the efficacy of oral or injectable treatments for migraine prophylaxis and measured the outcomes as monthly migraine day, monthly headache day, migraine-related disability, health-related quality of life or adverse drug events will be eligible for inclusion in this review. Relevant studies will be searched from Medline, Scopus, the US National Institutes of Health Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) databases since inception through 15 August 2023. Risk of bias assessment will be performed using a revised tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomised trials. Two-stage NMA will be applied to compare relative treatment effects among all treatments of migraine prophylaxis. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve will be applied to estimate and rank the probability to be the best treatment. Consistency assumption will be assessed using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Publication bias will be assessed by comparison-adjusted funnel plot. All analyses will be stratified according to patients' status (ie, treatment-naïve and prior treatment failure).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is a systematic review protocol collecting data from published literature and does not require approval from an institutional review board. Results from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171843.

Efficacy and Safety of Anti-CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Prevention of Chronic Migraine: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

Due to the unmet needs in the management of migraine, a primary headache, and disabling disorder, the past decade has focused on developing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against the calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) as migraine prophylactic agents. The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of various anti-CGRP mAbs in the prevention of chronic migraine. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using the Bayesian framework to estimate the efficacy and safety of mAbs after performing a literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP). The outcomes calculated were in terms of mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% credible interval (95%CrI). Network graphs were constructed and node-split analysis was done to analyze the inconsistency. The NMA included a total of 10 clinical trials. Galacanezumab (120 mg) (MD: -2.7; 95%CrI: -4.8 to -0.83) was found to be better than other mAbs in terms of the difference in mean migraine days (MMD). Fremanezumab quarterly dose administration showed the best response (OR: 2.9; 95%CrI: 1.9 to 4.6) in terms of responder rate. Eptinezumab was found to be safer (OR: 0.88; 95%CrI: 0.61-1.3) as compared to other mAbs in terms of the rate of adverse events. Fremanezumab (quarterly) ranked better in terms of response rate, and eptinezumab was found to be the safest in the prophylactic management of migraine. Galacenequmab was better at reducing MMD. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term safety, efficacy, and use of mAbs in migraine patients.

Pharmacology of erenumab in human isolated coronary and meningeal arteries: Additional effect of gepants on top of a maximum effect of erenumab

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Multiple drugs targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor have been developed for migraine treatment. Here, the effect of the monoclonal antibody erenumab on CGRP-induced vasorelaxation was investigated in human isolated blood vessels, as well as the effect of combining erenumab with the small molecule drugs, namely rimegepant, olcegepant, or sumatriptan.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Concentration-response curves to CGRP, adrenomedullin or pramlintide were constructed in human coronary artery (HCA) and human middle meningeal artery (HMMA) segments, incubated with or without erenumab and/or olcegepant. pA2 or pKb values were calculated to determine the potency of erenumab in both tissues. To study whether acutely acting antimigraine drugs exerted additional CGRP-blocking effects on top of erenumab, HCA segments were incubated with a maximally effective concentration of erenumab (3 μM), precontracted with KCl and exposed to CGRP, followed by rimegepant, olcegepant, or sumatriptan in increasing concentrations.

KEY RESULTS

Erenumab shifted the concentration-response curve to CGRP in both vascular tissues. However, in HCA, the Schild plot slope was significantly smaller than unity, whereas this was not the case in HMMA, indicating different CGRP receptor mechanisms in these tissues. In HCA, rimegepant, olcegepant and sumatriptan exerted additional effects on CGRP on top of a maximal effect of erenumab.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Gepants have additional effects on top of erenumab for CGRP-induced relaxation and could be effective in treating migraine attacks in patients already using erenumab as prophylaxis.

High Dosage Omega-3 Fatty Acids Outperform Existing Pharmacological Options for Migraine Prophylaxis: A Network Meta-Analysis

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurologic disorder with prevalence rates ranging from 9% to 18% worldwide. Current pharmacologic prophylactic strategies for migraine have limited efficacy and acceptability, with relatively low response rates of 40% to 50% and limited safety profiles. Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are considered promising therapeutic agents for migraine prophylaxis. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of various dosages of EPA/DHA and other current Food and Drug Administration-approved or guideline-recommended prophylactic pharmacologic interventions for migraine. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled participants with a diagnosis of either episodic or chronic migraine. All NMA procedures were conducted under the frequentist model. The primary outcomes assessed were 1) changes in migraine frequency and 2) acceptability (i.e., dropout for any reason). Secondary outcomes included response rates, changes in migraine severity, changes in the frequency of using rescue medications, and frequency of any adverse events. Forty RCTs were included (N = 6616; mean age = 35.0 y; 78.9% women). Our analysis showed that supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA yields the highest decrease in migraine frequency [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.32, -0.39 compared with placebo] and the largest decrease in migraine severity (SMD: -2.23; 95% CI: -3.17, -1.30 compared with placebo) in all studied interventions. Furthermore, supplementation with high dosage EPA/DHA showed the most favorable acceptability rates (odds ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.06, 17.41 compared with placebo) of all examined prophylactic treatments. This study provides compelling evidence that high dosage EPA/DHA supplementation can be considered a first-choice treatment of migraine prophylaxis because this treatment displayed the highest efficacy and highest acceptability of all studied treatments. This study was registered in PROSPERO as CRD42022319577.

Pharmaceutical aspects of novel CGRP inhibitors used in the prophylaxis and treatment of migraine

Migraine is one of the most prevalent neurological disorders known to have an immense adverse socio-economic impact. Neurogenic inflammation is thought to mediate migraine, and CGRP is known to be released during acute attacks of migraine that causes vasodilation in extracerebral arteries. Hence, CGRP is believed to play a key role in triggering migraine. Although there are several classes of medications used in the prevention and treatment of migraine pain, targeted therapies are fewer. Therefore, CGRP receptor inhibitors which bind to CGRP receptors in the cranial vasculature have been developed as drugs for migraine therapy. In this review article, we describe the basic pathophysiologic mechanism that causes migraine headaches and the pharmacotherapeutic aspects of CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use. For the purpose of this review, a search was performed on the pharmacological, pharmacokinetic, pharmaceutical, and therapeutic aspects of the FDA-approved CGRP inhibitors viz. erenumab, ubrogepant, rimegepant, atogepant, eptinezumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab in UpToDate database and PubMed beginning year 2000. Based on the data collected, a risk-benefit comparison of different classes of novel CGRP inhibitors available for clinical use is provided. This comparative review may help the healthcare providers in choosing the best pharmacotherapeutic agent for their patients based on patient-specific information.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Five Anti-calcitonin Gene-related Peptide Agents for Migraine Prevention: A Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) agents are some of the newest preventive medications for migraine. There is limited literature comparing the efficacy of the most recent CGRP antagonist, atogepant, to CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention. In this network meta-analysis, the efficacy and safety of migraine treatments including different doses of atogepant and CGRP monoclonal antibodies were evaluated to provide a reference for future clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library identified all randomized controlled trials published through May 2022 and including patients diagnosed with episodic or chronic migraine and treated with erenumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab, galcanezumab, atogepant, or placebo. The primary outcomes were the reduction of monthly migraine days, 50% response rate, and the number of adverse events (AEs). The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

In this study, 24 articles were considered for analysis. Regarding efficacy, all interventions were superior to placebo with a statistically significant difference. The most effective intervention was monthly fremanezumab 225 mg in change from baseline of migraine days (standard mean difference = -0.49, 95% CI: -0.62, -0.37) and 50% response rate (risk ratio = 2.98, 95% CI: 2.16,4.10), while the optimal choice for reducing acute medication days was monthly erenumab 140 mg (standard mean difference = -0.68, 95% CI: -0.79, -0.58). In terms of AEs, all therapies and placebo did not achieve statistical significance except for monthly galcanezumab 240 mg and quarterly fremanezumab 675 mg. There was no significant difference in discontinuation due to AEs between interventions and placebo.

DISCUSSION

All anti-CGRP agents were more effective than placebo in migraine prevention. Overall, monthly fremanezumab 225 mg, monthly erenumab 140 mg, and daily atogepant 60 mg were effective interventions with fewer side effects.

Network Meta-analysis of Different Treatments for Vestibular Migraine

INTRODUCTION

Although one of the major presentations of vestibular migraine is dizziness with/without unsteady gait, it is still classified as one of the migraine categories. However, in contrast to ordinary migraine, vestibular migraine patients have distinct characteristics, and the detailed treatment strategy for vestibular migraine is different and more challenging than ordinary migraine treatment. Currently, there is no conclusive evidence regarding its management, including vestibular migraine prophylaxis.

AIM

The objective of this current network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and acceptability of individual treatment strategies in patients with vestibular migraine.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Web of Science, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a final literature search date of 30 December 2022. Patients diagnosed with vestibular migraine were included. The PICO of the current study included (1) patients with vestibular migraine; (2) intervention: any active pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic intervention; (3) comparator: placebo-control, active control, or waiting list; and (4) outcome: changes in migraine frequency or severity. This NMA of RCTs of vestibular migraine treatment was conducted using a frequentist model. We arranged inconsistency and similarity tests to re-examine the assumption of NMA, and also conducted a subgroup analysis focusing on RCTs of pharmacological treatment for vestibular migraine management. The primary outcome was changes in the frequency of vestibular migraines, while the secondary outcomes were changes in vestibular migraine severity and acceptability. Acceptability was set as the dropout rate, which was defined as the participant leaving the study before the end of the trial for any reason. Two authors independently evaluated the risk of bias for each domain using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials (N = 828, mean age 37.6 years, 78.4% female) and seven active regimens were included. We determined that only valproic acid (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.69, -0.54), propranolol (SMD -1.36, 95% CI -2.55, -0.17), and venlafaxine (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -2.32, -0.18) were significantly associated with better improvement in vestibular migraine frequency than the placebo/control groups. Furthermore, among all the investigated pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments, valproic acid yielded the greatest decrease in vestibular migraine frequency among all the interventions. In addition, most pharmacologic/non-pharmacologic treatments were associated with similar acceptability (i.e. dropout rate) as those of the placebo/control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides evidence that only valproic acid, propranolol, and venlafaxine might be associated with beneficial efficacy in vestibular migraine treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42023388343.

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.

Effectiveness and safety of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients over 65 years: a real-life multicentre analysis of 162 patients

BACKGROUND

Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies have shown notable effectiveness and tolerability in migraine patients; however, data on their use in elderly patients is still lacking, as clinical trials have implicit age restrictions and real-world evidence is scarce. In this study, we aimed to describe the safety and effectiveness of erenumab, galcanezumab and fremanezumab in migraine patients over 65 years old in real-life.

METHODS

In this observational real-life study, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 18 different headache units in Spain was performed. Migraine patients who started treatment with any anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody after the age of 65 years were included. Primary endpoints were reduction in monthly migraine days after 6 months of treatment and the presence of adverse effects. Secondary endpoints were reductions in headache and medication intake frequencies by months 3 and 6, response rates, changes in patient-reported outcomes and reasons for discontinuation. As a subanalysis, reduction in monthly migraine days and proportion of adverse effects were also compared among the three monoclonal antibodies.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were included, median age 68 years (range 65-87), 74.1% women. 42% had dyslipidaemia, 40.3% hypertension, 8% diabetes, and 6.2% previous cardiovascular ischaemic disease. The reduction in monthly migraine days at month 6 was 10.1 ± 7.3 days. A total of 25.3% of patients presented adverse effects, all of them mild, with only two cases of blood pressure increase. Headache and medication intake frequencies were significantly reduced, and patient-reported outcomes were improved. The proportions of responders were 68%, 57%, 33% and 9% for reductions in monthly migraine days ≥ 30%, ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100%, respectively. A total of 72.8% of patients continued with the treatment after 6 months. The reduction in migraine days was similar for the different anti-CGRP treatments, but fewer adverse effects were detected with fremanezumab (7.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-CGRP mAbs are safe and effective treatments in migraine patients over 65 years old in real-life clinical practice.

A head-to-head observational cohort study on the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide for chronic and episodic migraine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab for the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine, through real-world data.

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) pathway have been tested extensively in several clinical trials for both episodic and chronic migraine, showing high effectiveness, safety, and tolerability; however, there are no prospective real-world studies intending to compare their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study comparing the effectiveness and safety profiles of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab for the treatment of chronic and episodic migraine. We enrolled 140 patients at the Headache Centre of University Federico II of Naples, with a history of multiple failed treatments with validated migraine preventatives. Framenezumab, erenumab, or galcanezumab were administered for 12 months. The mean monthly days with headache, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score, and adverse events were evaluated during the run-in period and every 3 months by reviewing standardized paper patient headache diaries.

RESULTS

We found a mean reduction of migraine monthly days from baseline of -12.0 (-9.8, -14.1) in the galcanezumab group, -12.3 (-10.2, -14.3) in the fremanezumab group, and -10.8 (-8.5, -13.1) in the erenumab group (for all, p < 0.001). We found a mean reduction of MIDAS score of -32.6 (-26.6, -38.5) in the galcanezumab group, -33.4 (-28.0, -38.9) in the fremanezumab group, and -29.2 (-23.0, -35.4) in the erenumab group (for all, p < 0.001). We found no significant differences between mAbs in the reduction of mean monthly days with headache and MIDAS score. We found a more rapid effect of galcanezumab and erenumab compared to fremanezumab in medication overuse headache patients after 3 months of treatment (-10.8 and -11.1 vs. -4.0 days; p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm the therapeutic benefits of anti-CGRP mAbs. There is no evidence that suggests that one antibody may be superior to the others in terms of effectiveness, both in chronic and episodic patients.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Review of Tolerability of Fremanezumab for Episodic and Chronic Migraine

Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) were the first class of medication specifically developed for the prevention of migraine. Fremanezumab is one of four CGRP mAbs currently available and is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the preventative treatment of episodic and chronic migraines. This narrative review summarizes the history of fremanezumab development, the trials that led to its approval, and the later studies published evaluating its tolerability and efficacy. Evidence of fremanezumab for clinically significant efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic migraine is especially important when considering the high level of disability, lower quality of life scores, and higher levels of health-care utilization associated with this condition. Multiple clinical trials demonstrated superiority of fremanezumab over placebo in terms of efficacy while demonstrating good tolerability. Treatment-related adverse reactions did not differ significantly compared to placebo and dropout rates were minimal. The most commonly observed treatment-related adverse reaction was mild-to-moderate injection site reaction, described as erythema, pain, induration, or swelling at the injection site.

Erenumab versus topiramate: post hoc efficacy analysis from the HER-MES study

OBJECTIVE

HER-MES was the first head-to-head, phase 4 trial to assess the tolerability and effectiveness of erenumab against standard of care treatment (topiramate). This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of erenumab with topiramate in patients who completed the trial on study medication.

METHODS

Post hoc sensitivity analysis was performed using the full analysis set. Outcomes assessed included the proportion of patients with a ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) from baseline (50% responder rate), over the last 3 months (months 4, 5, and 6) of the double-blind treatment phase (DBTP), the 50% responder rate during the first month of the DBTP, and change from baseline in MMD during the DBTP. Multiple imputation was done for efficacy values of patients who discontinued study treatment.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 777) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 70 or 140 mg/month erenumab (N = 389) or 50-100 mg/day topiramate (N = 388). Of these, 334 patients (85.9%) receiving erenumab, and 231 patients (59.5%) receiving topiramate completed the DBTP on study medication. Patients on study medication until the end of the DBTP received a mean dose of 119 mg/month for erenumab and 92 mg/day for topiramate. At month 1, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving erenumab (39.2%) reported ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (24.0%; p < 0.001). In the last 3 months, a significantly larger proportion of patients receiving erenumab (60.3%) achieved ≥50% reduction in MMD from baseline compared with those receiving topiramate (43.3%; p < 0.001). Patients receiving erenumab demonstrated significantly greater reductions in MMD during the last 3 months from baseline versus those receiving topiramate (- 6.13 vs - 4.90; 95% CI: - 1.87 to - 0.61; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated significantly superior efficacy of erenumab versus topiramate in achieving a ≥50% reduction in MMD with an early onset of efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03828539 .

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.