Network meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of different anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody regimens for prophylaxis and treatment of episodic migraine

[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.

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.

Effectiveness of Switching CGRP Monoclonal Antibodies in Non-Responder Patients in the UAE: A Retrospective Study

Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) have shown promising effectiveness in migraine management compared to other preventative treatment options. Many questions remain regarding switching between antibody classes as a treatment option in patients with migraine headaches. This preliminary retrospective real-world study explored the treatment response of patients who switched between CGRP mAb classes due to lack of efficacy or poor tolerability. A total of 53 patients with migraine headache switched between three of the CGRP mAbs types due to lack of efficacy of the original prescribed CGRP mAbs, specifically eptinezumab, erenumab, and galcanezumab. Fremanezumab was not included due to unavailability in the UAE. Galcanezumab and eptinezumab target the CGRP ligand (CGRP/L), while erenumab targets CGRP receptors (CGRP/R). The analysis of efficacy demonstrated that some improvements were seen in both class switch cohorts (CGRP/R to CGRP/L and CGRP/L to CGRP/R). The safety of switching between CGRP classes was well observed, as any adverse events presented before the class switch did not lead to the discontinuation of treatment following the later switch. The findings of this study suggest that switching between different classes of CGRP mAbs is a potentially safe and clinically viable practice that may have some applications for those experiencing side effects on their current CGRP mAb or those witnessing suboptimal response.

Real-world experience with calcitonin gene-related peptide-targeted antibodies for migraine prevention: a retrospective observational cohort study at two Japanese headache centers

BACKGROUND

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP)-targeted monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for migraine prevention, their clinical benefits have not been well validated in Japanese patients in the real-world setting. The present study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

This observational retrospective cohort study was conducted at two headache centers in Japan. Patients with migraine who had experienced treatment failure with at least one traditional oral migraine preventive agent were treated with a CGRP mAb de novo. The primary efficacy endpoints were the changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (MMDs) and Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) score after 3 dosing intervals (V3). We explored whether demographic and clinical characteristics predicted therapeutic outcomes at V3.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients who completed three doses of a CGRP mAb (85.3% female [58/68], mean age: 46.2 ± 13.1 years) were included in the analysis. There were 19 patients with chronic migraine. The baseline MMDs were 13.4 ± 6.0. After 3 doses, the MMDs significantly decreased to 7.4 ± 5.5 (p < 0.0001), and the 50% response rate was 50.0%. HIT-6 score was significantly reduced from 66.7 ± 5.4 to 56.2 ± 8.7 after 3 doses (P = 0.0001). There was a positive correlation between the changes in MMDs and HIT-6 score from baseline after 2 doses (p = 0.0189). Those who achieved a ≥ 50% therapeutic response after the first and second doses were significantly more likely to do so at V3 (crude odds ratio: 3.474 [95% CI: 1.037 to 10.4], p = 0.0467). The most frequent adverse event was constipation (7.4%). None of the adverse events were serious, and there was no need for treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study demonstrated that CGRP mAbs conferred Japanese patients with efficacious and safe migraine prevention, and an initial positive therapeutic response was predictive of subsequent favorable outcomes. Concomitant measurement of MMDs and HIT-6 score was useful in evaluating the efficacy of CGRP mAbs in migraine prevention.

Accuracy of migraine diagnosis and treatment by neurologists in the Baltic states: e-survey with clinical case challenge

BACKGROUND

Underdiagnosis of migraine causes a significant health burden, including lower quality of life, excessive medication use, and a delay in effective treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate migraine diagnosis accuracy and to review the treatment approaches used by neurologists in the Baltic states.

METHODS

The research was conducted as an anonymous e-survey with four cases in March and April 2021.

RESULTS

119 practicing adult neurologists have participated. The migraine diagnostic accuracy was 63.2%. The most commonly used diagnostic criteria were moderate/severe pain, unilateral pain, and disruption of daily activities. Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly between neurologists who always use ICHD-3 criteria and those who don't (68.4% vs. 58.5%, p = 0.167). It was higher in neurologists who were working in headache centers (91.7% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.012), and was related to a higher percentage of migraine diagnoses in all consulted headache patients (R2 = 0.202, adjusted R2 = 0.195, p < 0.001), prophylaxis with onabotulinumtoxin A [OR = 4.332, 95% Cl (1.588-11.814)], and anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies [OR = 2.862, 95% Cl (1.186-6.907)].

CONCLUSIONS

Migraine diagnostic accuracy is improved through practical patient counseling and modern treatment prescription. Although the neurologists in the Baltic states follow current European guidelines, there is room for improvement in diagnostic accuracy to reduce migraine burden.

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.

An observational study on monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin-gene-related peptide and its receptor

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Based on their pharmacological target, two classes of calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been identified: antibodies against the CGRP ligand-galcanezumab, fremanezumab, eptinezumab-and antibodies against the CGRP receptor (CGRP-R), erenumab. The aim of the present study was to compare anti-CGRP versus anti-CGRP-R mAbs in patients with high frequency episodic and chronic migraine.

METHODS

All patients on monthly treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs with an available 6 months' follow-up at January 2022 were included. Data on efficacy outcome were collected following one (T1), three (T3) and six (T6) months of treatment, and included monthly headache/migraine days, the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and Headache Impact Test 6 (HIT-6) scores, pain intensity, analgesics consumption and response rates (>50% headache days reduction compared to baseline).

RESULTS

In all, 152 patients were enrolled, of whom 68 were in treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs (49 galcanezumab, 19 fremanezumab) and 84 with the anti-CGRP-R (erenumab). MIDAS scores were significantly lower in the anti-CGRP group at T1 and T3 (respectively p < 0.02 and p < 0.03) as well as the number of mean migraine days at T3 (p < 0.01). At T3 and T6 outcome measures were comparable, although a significantly higher percentage of super-responders was found in the anti-CGRP group (respectively p < 0.04 and p < 0.05), with a similar overall percentage of responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study on a real-world sample confirms the beneficial effect of both anti-CGRP and anti-CGRP-R mAbs, with a more favorable outcome for anti-CGRP antibodies.

New Approaches to Shifting the Migraine Treatment Paradigm

The standard of care paradigm for migraine treatment has been based almost exclusively on approaches that grew out of the happenstance use of market pharmaceuticals. Only methysergide, which has long since been removed from use for safety concerns, the ergotamine family of drugs, and the triptans were explicitly developed with migraine and other vascular headaches in mind. While the forward and innovative thinking to utilize the broad array of agents to treat migraine served millions well, their therapeutic efficacy was often low, and adverse event profiles were troublesome in the least. Advances in biochemical and molecular biology and the application of advanced "designing drugs" methods have brought about a potentially significant shift in treatment. The gepants have efficacies similar to the triptans but without vascular safety or medication overuse concerns. Preventative gepants offer innovative approaches to prevention and efficacy that exceed even the CGRP monoclonal antibodies. Those monoclonal antibodies brought rapid and highly effective outcomes across the spectrum of migraine. They outpaced older oral medication efficacy and eliminated most adverse events while potentially improving compliance with monthly or quarterly dosing. Other serotonin receptors beyond the 5HT1B and1D receptors have been targeted for decades. They now lead us to better formulations of dihydroergotamine for efficacy, convenience, and tolerability, and a 5HT1F-specific acute treatment like the gepants opens new options for acute management. Neuromodulation goes back to the mid-1800's. Our improved understanding of applied biomedical engineering has brought forward several tantalizing devices, including the application of currents distant from the target and patient regulated. Whether these advances change the paradigm of migraine treatment and standards of care remains to be seen, and issues such as cost and patient acceptance will help mold it.

The Safety and Efficacy of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP) Monoclonal Antibodies for the Preventive Treatment of Migraine: A Protocol for Multiple-Treatment Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common and disabling primary headache disorder, associated with many medical comorbidities, highly prevalent, with complex treatment and management. Currently, monoclonal antibodies targeting the trigeminal sensory neuropeptide, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), are available. The aim of this protocol is to provide a review comparing the effects and safety profile of different monoclonal antibodies in migraine patients.

METHODS

The literature search will be performed through the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Web of Science and Scopus databases, following the PICO strategy. Real World studies and randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of monoclonal antibodies against CGRP interventions (erenumab, eptinezumab, fremanezumab and galcanezumab) on monthly migraine days (MMD), monthly headache days (MHD), headache impact test (HIT-6) and triptan days of use (TriD) will be included. In Real World studies, the DerSimonian and Laird method will be used to calculate pooled estimates of the mean change difference and in randomized clinical trials, a network meta-analysis will be performed to estimate the comparative effects of different monoclonal antibodies against CGRP.

RESULTS

The findings of this study will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will provide evidence to health professionals on the efficacy and safety of different monoclonal antibodies against CGRP on the outcomes studied.