How much do calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies improve the quality of life in migraine? A patient's perspective

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.

Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting CGRP: A Novel Treatment in Vestibular Migraine

Background. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) directed against the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor represented the first targeted and specialized approach to migraine prophylaxis. Nevertheless, they have been rarely considered in the treatment of vestibular migraine (VM). Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-CGRP mAbs in VM patients who did not respond to conventional migraine treatments. Methods. Consecutive VM patients treated with erenumab were considered. As a comparison, we considered the same VM patients during conventional migraine treatments (i.e., propranolol, flunarizine, or valproic acid), which were tried before mAbs therapy. Videonystagmography, the Italian version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) questionnaire, and migraine days over the last 3 months were evaluated in all patients before and after treatments. Results. In the present retrospective study, we included 21 female and 2 male VM patients, mean age 45.2 years. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging that ruled out other causes of vertigo. The DHI questionnaire significantly improved after mAb therapy (p < 0.0001). Mean migraine days over the last 3 months were significantly reduced after treatment (p = 0.001). Videonystagmography was altered in 11 (48%) patients prior to monoclonal antibodies. We found vertical positional nystagmus in 9 patients and horizontal positional nystagmus in 2 patients. After the treatment, we found vertical positional nystagmus only in 1 patient (p = 0.002). When patients were treated with conventional therapies, there was no significant reduction in DHI, and instrumental vestibular examinations remained altered. Conclusions. VM patients using anti-CGRP mAbs experienced a reduction in the dizziness-derived handicap, as reported in the DHI questionnaire. Furthermore, these treatments were significantly associated with a normalization of vestibular instrumental analysis. These findings were not seen with conventional treatments. Treatment with anti-CGRP mAbs may be effective in VM patients who did not respond to conventional migraine treatments. These findings should be tested in large, randomized clinical trials.

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.

Medium-term real-world data for erenumab in 177 treatment resistant or difficult to treat chronic migraine patients: persistence and patient reported outcome measures after 17-30 months

BACKGROUND

Many migraine patients do not respond adequately to conventional preventive treatments and are therefore described as treatment/medically resistant or difficult to treat cases. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies are a relatively novel molecular treatment for episodic and chronic migraine that have been shown to be effective in short duration clinical trials in approximately 40-50% of all chronic migraine patients. Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROM) or Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaires are used to help measure response to treatment in migraine. Although some open label extension studies have become available for erenumab, there is a lack of real-world data pertaining to quality of life in the medium to long-term for chronic and treatment resistant migraine patients.

METHODS

A total of 177 treatment resistant CM patients were started on erenumab (70 mg or 140 mg subcutaneous injection every 4 weeks) in our three specialist Headache Clinics. Of these, 174 had their first injection between December 2018 and October 2019. All patients were evaluated with the following PROM: the Headache Impact Test- 6, Migraine Associated Disability Assessment test and Migraine-Specific QoL Questionnaire, before starting treatment with erenumab and at intervals of 3-12 months after starting treatment. The decision to continue treatment was based on subjective clinical improvement of at least 30% (as reported by the patient), supported with diaries and QoL questionnaires. We present here the QoL measurements for this group of 177 patients. Prior preventive migraine treatments included conventional oral prophylactic medications (such as topiramate, candesartan, propranolol, or amitriptyline), at least two cycles of PREEMPT protocol onabotulinumtoxin A or (in a small number of cases) neuromodulation with single pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

RESULTS

Of the 177 patients who started treatment with erenumab, 68/177 (38.4%) stopped during the first year, either due to lack of efficacy (no significant benefit or only minimal improvement) and/or possible side effects. 109/177 (61.6%) patients reported clinically significant improvement after 6-12 months and wished to stay on treatment. Twelve of these 109 patients subsequently stopped treatment in the period between 1 year and up to June 2021 (mainly due to a worsening of their migraine). Therefore, a total of 97/177 patients (54.8%) remained on treatment as of June 2021 (duration of treatment 17-30 months, median of 25 months).

CONCLUSION

Approximately 55% of treatment resistant or difficult to treat CM patients who trialled erenumab in our clinics reported a subjective benefit and were still on treatment after 17-30 months.

Predictors of response to anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies: a 24-week, multicenter, prospective study on 864 migraine patients

Background and objectives

The identification of predictors of response to antiCGRP mAbs could favor tailored therapies and personalized treatment plans. This study is aimed at investigating predictors of ≥ 50%, ≥ 75% and 100% response at 24 weeks in patients with high-frequency episodic (HFEM: 8–14 days/month) or chronic migraine (CM).

Methods

This is a large, multicenter, cohort, real-life study. We considered all consecutive adult patients affected by HFEM or CM who were prescribed antiCGRP mAbs for ≥ 24 weeks in 20 headache centers. Patients were interviewed face-to-face using a shared semi-structured questionnaire carefully exploring socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Patients received subcutaneous erenumab (70 mg or140 mg, monthly), galcanezumab (120 mg monthly, following a 240 mg loading dose), or fremanezumab (225 mg, monthly or 675 mg, quarterly) according to drug market availability, physician’s choice, or patient’s preference. The primary endpoint of the study was the assessment of ≥ 50% response predictors at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints included ≥ 75% and 100% response predictors at 24 weeks.

Results

Eight hundred sixty-four migraine patients had been treated with antiCGRP mAbs for ≥ 24 weeks (erenumab: 639 pts; galcanezumab: 173 pts; fremanezumab: 55 pts). The ≥50% response (primary endpoint) in HFEM was positively associated with unilateral pain (UP) + unilateral cranial autonomic symptoms (UAs) (OR:4.23, 95%CI:1.57–11.4; p = 0.004), while in CM was positively associated with UAs (OR:1.49, 95%CI:1.05–2.11; p = 0.026), UP + UAs (OR:1.90, 95%CI:1.15–3.16; p = 0.012), UP + allodynia (OR:1.71, 95%CI:1.04–2.83; p = 0.034), and negatively associated with obesity (OR:0.21, 95%CI:0.07–0.64; p = 0.006). The 75% response (secondary endpoint) was positively associated with UP + UAs in HFEM (OR:3.44, 95%CI:1.42–8.31; p = 0.006) and with UP + UAs (OR:1.78, 95%CI:1.14–2.80; p = 0.012) and UP + allodynia (OR:1.92, 95%CI:1.22–3.06; p = 0.005) in CM. No predictor of 100% response emerged in patients with HFEM or CM.

Conclusions

A critical evaluation of headache characteristics indicating peripheral or central sensitization may help in predicting responsiveness to antiCGRP mAbs in HFEM and CM. A more precise pain profiling may represent a steppingstone for a mechanism-based approach and personalized treatment of migraine with compounds targeting specific molecular mechanisms.

Migraine-attributed burden, impact and disability, and migraine-impacted quality of life: Expert consensus on definitions from a Delphi process

Background

Migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life are important concepts in clinical management, clinical and epidemiological research, and health policy, requiring clear and agreed definitions. We aimed to formulate concise and precise definitions of these concepts by expert consensus.

Methods

We searched the terms migraine-attributed burden, impact, disability and migraine-impacted quality of life in Embase and Medline from 1974 and 1946 respectively. We followed a Delphi process to reach consensus on definitions.

Results

We found widespread conflation of concepts and inconsistent terminology within publications. Following three Delphi rounds, we defined migraine-attributed burden as “the summation of all negative consequences of the disease or its diagnosis”; migraine-attributed impact as “the effect of the disease, or its diagnosis, on a specified aspect of life, health or wellbeing”; migraine-attributed disability as “physical, cognitive and mental incapacities imposed by the disease”; and migraine-impacted quality of life as “the subjective assessment by a person with the disease of their general wellbeing, position and prospects in life”. We complemented each definition with a detailed description.

Conclusion

These definitions and descriptions should foster consistency and encourage more appropriate use of currently available quantifying instruments and aid the future development of others.

In search of a gold standard patient-reported outcome measure to use in the evaluation and treatment-decision making in migraine prevention. A real-world evidence study

Background

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) have been developed to numerically quantify disability, impact and quality of life. They have been widely used in migraine clinical trials. However, we still do not know which PRO more accurately reflects preventive treatment response from a patient’s perspective or which one may help us with treatment decisions in clinical practice. They have been used to enforce the efficacy results in clinical trials and real-world evidence so far. The aim of this study was to analyze which PROM is (1) better correlated with all primary efficacy endpoints and (2) which one is better associated with treatment continuation with CGRP-mAbs at week-12, which is usually the moment when this decision is made.

Methods

Patients with migraine who had received 3 administrations of CGRP-mAbs were evaluated in this prospective cohort study. Primary efficacy outcomes considered: a change in migraine days (MMD), headache days (MHD), pain intensity (INT), acute medication days (AMD) and 50% responder rate. The Spearman coefficient (r_s) was the measure used for quantify the strength of the correlation between PROMs and treatment efficacy outcomes changes. A stepwise logistic regression identified which PROM was independently associated with treatment continuation at week-12.

Results

263 patients completed 12 weeks of treatment. The efficacy outcomes and PROMs scores were statistically significantly reduced at week-12 for all patients. The role function-restrictive (RFR) domain of the Migraine-Specific Quality of Life (MSQ) questionnaire was statistically significantly correlated with all primary efficacy outcomes. Relative changes in MSQ total score (OR[95%]: 0.840[0.619-0.973]; p=0.037) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale (OR[95%]: 15.569[6.254-31.533]; p<0.001) were the PROMs associated with treatment continuation as independent factors at week-12.

Conclusions

Changes in MSQ questionnaire and PGIC scale at week-12 were the PROMs with higher association with CGRP-mAbs response from a patient’s perspective and medical decision-taking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-021-01366-9.

Effect of erenumab on functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful: results from the LIBERTY study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of erenumab on patient-reported, functional outcomes in patients with episodic migraine (EM) in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful from the Phase 3b LIBERTY study.

METHODS

As previously reported, 246 patients with EM with 2-4 prior failed preventives were randomised 1:1 to subcutaneous erenumab 140 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks. This analysis evaluated Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (MPFID), Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) scores at Week 12. P values were nominal without multiplicity adjustment.

RESULTS

Erenumab significantly improved MPFID-Physical Impairment (PI) and Everyday Activities (EA) scores versus placebo (treatment difference (TD) (95% CI) MPFID-PI: -3.5 (-5.7 to -1.2) (p=0.003); MPFID-EA: -3.9 (-6.1 to -1.7)) (p<0.001) at 12 weeks. Patients on erenumab were more likely to have a ≥5-point reduction in MPFID score (OR vs placebo (95% CI) MPFID-EA: 2.1 (1.2 to 3.6); MPFID-PI: 2.5 (1.4 to 4.5)). A similar trend was observed for HIT-6 (TD: -3.0; p<0.001); significantly higher proportions of patients on erenumab reported a ≥5-point reduction (OR (95% CI): 2.4 (1.4 to 4.1)). In three out of four WPAI domains, erenumab showed improvement versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

At 12 weeks, erenumab was efficacious on functional outcomes in patients with EM in whom 2-4 preventives were not useful.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03096834.

Treatment Satisfaction of Galcanezumab in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine: A Phase 2 Randomized Controlled Study

Introduction

This analysis evaluated the treatment satisfaction of Japanese patients receiving galcanezumab (GMB) as a preventive medication for episodic migraine (4–14 monthly migraine headache days).

Methods

This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled patients aged 18–65 years at 40 centers in Japan. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of placebo (PBO, n = 230), GMB 120 mg (n = 115), or GMB 240 mg (n = 114) for 6 months. Patients’ experience with treatment was measured using the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and Patient Satisfaction with Medication Questionnaire-Modified (PSMQ-M) scales. PGI-S was administered at baseline and months 1–6, PGI-I at months 1–6, and PSMQ-M at months 1 and 6. Prespecified analyses were differences between GMB and PBO in PGI-I and the change from baseline in PGI-S, and evaluating positive responses for the PGI-I and PSMQ-M.

Results

Average change ± SE from baseline across months 1–6 was − 0.09 ± 0.05 (PBO), − 0.17 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p = 0.33), and − 0.30 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p = 0.013) for PGI-S. Average PGI-I across months 1–6 was 3.39 ± 0.05 (PBO), 2.55 ± 0.07 (GMB 120 mg, p < 0.05), and 2.71 ± 0.07 (GMB 240 mg, p < 0.05). Reductions of 2.8–3.0 monthly migraine headache days corresponded to 25–31% higher positive PGI-I response rates with GMB compared with PBO. Positive PSMQ-M response rates for satisfaction and preference were statistically significantly higher for GMB compared with PBO (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], all p < 0.05 vs. PBO): satisfaction GMB 120 mg (3.142 [1.936–5.098]) and GMB 240 mg (3.924 [2.417–6.369]), and preference GMB 120 mg (3.691 [2.265–6.017]) and GMB 240 mg (3.510 [2.180–5.652]).

Conclusion

Japanese patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with GMB are significantly more satisfied than those receiving PBO.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 (registered November 7, 2016).

Graphical Plain Language Summary

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40120-021-00236-5.

Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Version 2.1 Score Improvement in Japanese Patients with Episodic Migraine by Galcanezumab Treatment: Japan Phase 2 Study

Purpose

Evaluate changes from baseline in health-related quality of life (QoL) in Japanese patients with episodic migraine receiving preventive treatment with galcanezumab (GMB).

Patients and Methods

Preventive treatments for migraine have been shown to improve QoL, but few clinical trials have examined QoL outcomes in Japanese patients. This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at 40 centers in Japan. Patients aged 18-65 years with episodic migraine (4-14 monthly migraine headache days) received GMB 120 mg (n=115), 240 mg (n=114), or placebo (PBO, n=230) as monthly subcutaneous injections for 6 months. QoL was measured monthly using the Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (MSQ) version 2.1. Prespecified analyses were differences between GMB and PBO for change from baseline in all 3 domains of the MSQ and MSQ-Total, for each month and the average over Months 4-6.

Results

Treatment with GMB significantly increased MSQ scores from baseline vs PBO. Average change ± SE from baseline across Months 4-6 was 10.12±0.72 (PBO), 17.13±1.03 (GMB 120 mg; P<0.001), and 15.91±1.03 (GMB 240 mg; P<0.001) for MSQ Role Function-Restrictive; 4.80±0.65 (PBO), 9.64±0.93 (GMB 120 mg; P<0.001), and 8.35±0.93 (GMB 240 mg; P<0.05) for MSQ Role Function-Preventive (MSQ-RFP); 3.46±0.77 (PBO), 10.04±1.10 (GMB 120 mg; P<0.001), and 7.73±1.10 (GMB 240 mg; P<0.05) for MSQ Emotional Function, and 7.14±0.67 (PBO), 13.46±0.95 (GMB 120 mg; P<0.001), and 11.98±0.95 (GMB 240 mg; P<0.001) for MSQ-Total. Significantly greater improvement in scores in all MSQ domains and MSQ-Total was observed for both GMB doses vs PBO at Month 1 and was maintained for Months 1-6 (excluding Month 5 for MSQ-RFP).

Conclusion

Preventive treatment with GMB 120 mg/240 mg improves MSQ scores in Japanese patients with episodic migraine. Improvements were seen within the first month and maintained for 6 months and are similar to those seen in global studies enrolling primarily Caucasian patients.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959177 (registered November 7, 2016).

Migraine Headache Day Response Rates and the Implications to Patient Functioning: An Evaluation of 3 Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Galcanezumab in Patients With Migraine

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc study investigated the relationship between patient response in terms of migraine headache day reduction and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and disability categories.

BACKGROUND

Migraine causes considerable disease-related disability and negatively impacts HRQoL of patients. Calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitors improve these outcomes and may eliminate disability due to migraine in some patients.

METHODS

Analyses used data from 3 double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled, phase 3 studies in adults with episodic migraine (EM) (EVOLVE-1: N = 858 and EVOLVE-2: N = 915) or chronic migraine (CM) (REGAIN: N = 1113). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to subcutaneous injection of PBO, galcanezumab (GMB) 120 mg, or GMB 240 mg once monthly for 6 months in EVOLVE-1 and -2 and for 3 months in REGAIN. Primary endpoint was overall mean change from baseline in monthly migraine headache days. Patients were divided into 4 response-level groups based on percent change from baseline (<30%, ≥30% to <50%, ≥50% to <75%, ≥75%). Patient-reported outcomes included the 14-item Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQ) and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among patients with migraine, mean improvements from baseline in MSQ domain scores increased with each successive level of migraine headache day response. On a 100-pt scale, increases in Role Function-Restrictive score in EM were 16.8 and 36.0 at the <30% and ≥75% response levels, respectively, and for CM were 10.7 and 46.5. Similar patterns in scores were observed for the Role Function-Preventive and Emotional Function domains. Examination of improvement in MSQ item score by treatment group showed that, in patients with EM, approximately 10 to 20% more GMB-treated patients (N = 796 for GMB 120 mg and GMB 240 mg) had improvements in all 14 MSQ items compared with PBO-treated patients (N = 773) (all P < .001). In patients with CM, 3 to 16% more GMB-treated patients (N = 507) had improvements in the 14 MSQ items compared with PBO (N = 494), though differences were statistically significant in only 19 of 28 comparisons. At baseline, mean MIDAS scores (EM, 33.1; CM, 67.2) indicated severe mean disability for patients with EM and very severe disability for patients with CM. Among patients with EM, 215 of 425 (50.6%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 212 of 413 (51.3%) treated with 240 mg had little/no disability due to migraine after 6 months (PBO: 277 of 832 (33.3%), P < .001 for both). Among patients with CM, 50 of 254 (19.7%) of those treated with GMB 120 mg and 54 of 258 (20.9%) treated with 240 mg reached the level of little/no disability after 3 months of treatment (PBO: 70 of 504 (13.9%), P = .045 for 120 mg, P = .017 for 240 mg).

CONCLUSIONS

Because migraine greatly impairs an individual's ability to participate in activities of daily living, measurements of HRQoL are essential in clinical research. This study showed that function in daily life, as measured by MSQ score, improved as migraine headache days were reduced and that GMB-treated patients were more likely to see improvement in MSQ item scores compared with PBO-treated patients. Elimination of migraine-related disability was also more frequent in GMB-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients.

European headache federation consensus on the definition of resistant and refractory migraine : Developed with the endorsement of the European Migraine & Headache Alliance (EMHA)

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in the management of headache disorders, some patients with migraine do not experience adequate pain relief with acute and preventive treatments. It is the aim of the present document to provide a definition of those migraines which are difficult-to-treat, to create awareness of existence of this group of patients, to help Healthcare Authorities in understanding the implications, and to create a basis to develop a better pathophysiological understanding and to support further therapeutic advances.

MAIN BODY

Definitions were established with a consensus process using the Delphi method. Patients with migraine with or without aura or with chronic migraine can be defined as having resistant migraine and refractory migraine according to previous preventative failures. Resistant migraine is defined by having failed at least 3 classes of migraine preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 3 consecutive months without improvement; definition can be based on review of medical charts. Refractory migraine is defined by having failed all of the available preventatives and suffer from at least 8 debilitating headache days per month for at least 6 consecutive months. Drug failure may include lack of efficacy or lack of tolerability. Debilitating headache is defined as headache causing serious impairment to conduct activities of daily living despite the use of pain-relief drugs with established efficacy at the recommended dose and taken early during the attack; failure of at least two different triptans is required.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope, that the updated EHF definition will be able to solve the conflicts that have limited the use of definitions which have been put forward in the past. Only with a widely accepted definition, progresses in difficult-to-treat migraine can be achieved. This new definition has also the aim to increase the understanding of the impact of the migraine as a disease with all of its social, legal and healthcare implications. It is the hope of the EHF Expert Consensus Group that the proposed criteria will stimulate further clinical, scientific and social attention to patients who suffer from migraine which is difficult-to-treat.

Targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide: a new era in migraine therapy

Migraine is one of the most prevalent and disabling diseases worldwide, but until recently, few migraine-specific therapies had been developed. Extensive basic and clinical scientific investigation has provided strong evidence that the neuropeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has a key role in migraine. This evidence led to the development of small molecule CGRP receptor antagonists and monoclonal antibodies targeting either CGRP or its receptor. Clinical trials investigating these therapies have consistently shown statistically significant efficacy for either the acute or preventive treatment of migraine. No serious safety or tolerability issues have been identified in the trials of the monoclonal antibody therapies. Although the appropriate place of these new migraine-specific therapies relative to other available acute and preventive treatments remains to be determined, a growing body of evidence shows that therapeutic approaches targeting CGRP have the potential to transform the clinical management of migraine.