Examination of Unmet Treatment Needs Among Persons With Episodic Migraine: Results of the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

The impact of updates in headache quality measures on adherence to best practices in a neurology resident clinic: A quality improvement study

OBJECTIVE

To apply the 2019 joint American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and American Headache Society (AHS) quality measures for headache management to a cohort of neurology resident physicians and then assess outcomes related to guideline adherence.

BACKGROUND

The optimization of headache management is essential to reduce both the individual and systemic impact of these disorders. In 2014, the AAN developed 10 quality measures for evidence-based management of patients with headache. A workgroup updated and condensed its headache quality measures in 2019, narrowing the set to six measurements, four of which would primarily focus on the management of migraine and two of which would address the management of cluster headache.

METHODS

This quality improvement study was conducted using a pretest-posttest study design. A pre-intervention survey based on retrospective analysis of five clinic notes for adherence to the measures was designed and distributed to all neurology residents (n = 32) at a large, academic tertiary referral center. The intervention included the creation of an electronic medical record template to aid residents in following the measures during clinical encounters, as well as the provision of direct feedback based on pre-intervention results. Finally, a post-intervention survey was distributed for completion based on notes written during the intervention period. Analysis was limited to migraine, given the low percentage of cluster headache seen in clinic.

RESULTS

An increase in adherence was seen in three of the four migraine-related quality measures, with the Use of Abortive Medications for Migraine and Documentation of Counseling on Modifiable Lifestyle and Chronification Factors demonstrating statistically significant improvements (75.8% to 88.0% [p = 0.013] and 83.9% to 94.0% [p = 0.029] adherence, respectively). For secondary outcomes, the increase in the utilization of appropriate diagnostic criteria (82.6% to 93.2%, p = 0.018) was significant, and the self-assessed confidence rating for adherence to guidelines was significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that the quality improvement intervention led to increased adherence to the AAN and AHS migraine-related measures. It is anticipated that increased adherence may lead to improved patient outcomes.

Revolutionizing migraine management: advances and challenges in CGRP-targeted therapies and their clinical implications

Migraine, a prevalent neurological disorder, affects approximately 14.1% of the global population and disproportionately impacts females. This debilitating condition significantly compromises quality of life, productivity, and incurs high healthcare costs, presenting a challenge not only to individuals but to societal structures as a whole. Despite advances in our understanding of migraine pathophysiology, treatment options remain limited, necessitating ongoing research into effective therapies. This review delves into the complexity of migraine management, examining the roles of genetic predisposition, environmental influences, personalized treatment approaches, comorbidities, efficacy and safety of existing acute and preventive treatments. It further explores the continuum between migraine and tension-type headaches and discusses the intricacies of treating various migraine subtypes, including those with and without aura. We emphasize the recent paradigm shift toward trigeminovascular activation and the release of vasoactive substances, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), which offer novel therapeutic targets. We assess groundbreaking clinical trials, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perspectives, safety, tolerability, and the real-world application of CGRP monoclonal antibodies and gepants. In the face of persisting treatment barriers such as misdiagnosis, medication overuse headaches, and limited access to specialist care, we discuss innovative CGRP-targeted strategies, the high cost and scarcity of long-term efficacy data, and suggest comprehensive solutions tailored to Turkiye and developing countries. The review offers strategic recommendations including the formulation of primary care guidelines, establishment of specialized outpatient clinics, updating physicians on novel treatments, enhancing global accessibility to advanced therapies, and fostering patient education. Emphasizing the importance of lifestyle modifications and holistic approaches, the review underscores the potential of mass media and patient groups in disseminating critical health information and shaping the future of migraine management.

Preliminary External Validation Results of the Artificial Intelligence-Based Headache Diagnostic Model: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

The misdiagnosis of headache disorders is a serious issue, and AI-based headache model diagnoses with external validation are scarce. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI)-based headache diagnosis model using a database of 4000 patients' questionnaires in a headache-specializing clinic and herein performed external validation prospectively. The validation cohort of 59 headache patients was prospectively collected from August 2023 to February 2024 at our or collaborating multicenter institutions. The ground truth was specialists' diagnoses based on the initial questionnaire and at least a one-month headache diary after the initial consultation. The diagnostic performance of the AI model was evaluated. The mean age was 42.55 ± 12.74 years, and 51/59 (86.67%) of the patients were female. No missing values were reported. Of the 59 patients, 56 (89.83%) had migraines or medication-overuse headaches, and 3 (5.08%) had tension-type headaches. No one had trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias or other headaches. The models' overall accuracy and kappa for the ground truth were 94.92% and 0.65 (95%CI 0.21-1.00), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and F values for migraines were 98.21%, 66.67%, 98.21%, and 98.21%, respectively. There was disagreement between the AI diagnosis and the ground truth by headache specialists in two patients. This is the first external validation of the AI headache diagnosis model. Further data collection and external validation are required to strengthen and improve its performance in real-world settings.

Machine learning identifies factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine: Results of the OVERCOME (US) study

OBJECTIVE

Utilize machine learning models to identify factors associated with seeking medical care for migraine.

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a leading cause of disability worldwide, yet many people with migraine do not seek medical care.

METHODS

The web-based survey, ObserVational survey of the Epidemiology, tReatment and Care Of MigrainE (US), annually recruited demographically representative samples of the US adult population (2018-2020). Respondents with active migraine were identified via a validated diagnostic questionnaire and/or a self-reported medical diagnosis of migraine, and were then asked if they had consulted a healthcare professional for their headaches in the previous 12 months (i.e., "seeking care"). This included in-person/telephone/or e-visit at Primary Care, Specialty Care, or Emergency/Urgent Care locations. Supervised machine learning (Random Forest) and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) algorithms identified 13/54 sociodemographic and clinical factors most associated with seeking medical care for migraine. Random Forest models complex relationships (including interactions) between predictor variables and a response. LASSO is also an efficient feature selection algorithm. Linear models were used to determine the multivariable association of those factors with seeking care.

RESULTS

Among 61,826 persons with migraine, the mean age was 41.7 years (±14.8) and 31,529/61,826 (51.0%) sought medical care for migraine in the previous 12 months. Of those seeking care for migraine, 23,106/31,529 (73.3%) were female, 21,320/31,529 (67.6%) were White, and 28,030/31,529 (88.9%) had health insurance. Severe interictal burden (assessed via the Migraine Interictal Burden Scale-4, MIBS-4) occurred in 52.8% (16,657/31,529) of those seeking care and in 23.1% (6991/30,297) of those not seeking care; similar patterns were observed for severe migraine-related disability (assessed via the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale, MIDAS) (36.7% [11,561/31,529] vs. 14.6% [4434/30,297]) and severe ictal cutaneous allodynia (assessed via the Allodynia Symptom Checklist, ASC-12) (21.0% [6614/31,529] vs. 7.4% [2230/30,297]). Severe interictal burden (vs. none, OR 2.64, 95% CI [2.5, 2.8]); severe migraine-related disability (vs. little/none, OR 2.2, 95% CI [2.0, 2.3]); and severe ictal allodynia (vs. none, OR 1.7, 95% CI [1.6, 1.8]) were strongly associated with seeking care for migraine.

CONCLUSIONS

Seeking medical care for migraine is associated with higher interictal burden, disability, and allodynia. These findings could support interventions to promote care-seeking among people with migraine, encourage assessment of these factors during consultation, and prioritize these domains in selecting treatments and measuring their benefits.

Pain medication beliefs in individuals with headache

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate pain medication beliefs in a community sample of individuals with headache.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of medication adherence for individuals with headache have identified a high rate of prescription nonfulfillment, frequent medication discontinuation, and widely varying levels of medication-related satisfaction. Still, there is a limited understanding of how these individuals view their medications and their relationships with health-care providers. Insight into these perceptions could prove useful in explaining medication adherence behaviors.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis of a cross-sectional study, data from N = 215 adults with headache were analyzed. Participants completed the Pain Medication Attitudes Questionnaire (PMAQ), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Form Y-2, Weekly Stress Inventory Short Form, and Migraine Disability Scale. These participants also provided a list of their current pain medications.

RESULTS

Using the PMAQ, participants could be characterized as having medication beliefs that were "trusting and unconcerned" (n = 83/215 [38.6%]), "skeptical and somewhat worried" (n = 99/215 [46.0%]), or "skeptical and concerned" (n = 33/215 [15.3%]). Individuals with skeptical and concerned beliefs expressed elevated concerns (z > 1.15) about side effects, scrutiny, perceived need, tolerance, withdrawal, and addiction. Individuals who were trusting and unconcerned expressed low levels (z < -0.40) of these beliefs. Increasing levels of mistrust and medication concerns were correlated with higher depression scores on the CES-D, with values ranging from r = 0.23 to r = 0.38.

CONCLUSIONS

Subgroups of pain medication beliefs were identified, including two groups of patients with at least some concerns about their medical providers. Beliefs ranged from a lack of concern about using pain medications to worries about scrutiny and harm. It is unclear if poor experiences with pain medications cause these beliefs or if they prevent individuals from effectively utilizing medications. Additionally, more negative beliefs about pain medications were associated with more depressive symptoms.

Pearls for Starting a Headache Surgery Practice in Academic and Private Practice

There has been a growing body of evidence indicative of the effectiveness of headache surgery in treating patients with refractory headache disorders. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a Policy Statement in 2018 stating that peripheral nerve decompression surgery for the treatment of refractory chronic headache disorders in select patients is considered a standard of care treatment. This endorsement sparked the interest of numerous plastic surgeons into initiating their own headache surgery practices. However, establishing a headache surgery clinic introduces challenges and considerations. This report outlines the key pillars for launching a successful headache surgery practice in academic and private practice environments.

Comparison of Lasmiditan 200 mg Versus 100 mg for Migraine Patients: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

INTRODUCTION

The ideal dose of lasmiditan for migraine is not clear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients.

METHODS

We have searched several databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library Databases and selected the randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of lasmiditan 200 mg versus 100 mg for migraine patients. This meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with lasmiditan 100-mg group in migraine patients, lasmiditan 200-mg group was associated with substantially increased pain free at 2 hours (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-1.44; P = 0.0002) and pain free at 24 hours (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.60; P = 0.007) but demonstrated no obvious impact on pain relief at 2 hours (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.16; P = 0.72) or MBS free at 2 hours (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14; P = 0.52). In addition, the incidence of adverse events was higher in lasmiditan 200-mg group than that in lasmiditan 100-mg group (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan 200 mg is better for the treatment of migraine patients than lasmiditan 100 mg.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK

AIMS

Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

Unmet Needs in the Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine represents the most common neurologic disorder, ranking second among the world's causes of disability [expressed as years lived with disability (YLDs)]. Patients often do not receive the best therapy because of safety issues, tolerance, and prescription accessibility. General practitioners are not always educated about the disease, and specialists are few and often difficult to reach. Therapies are limited and have many side effects that can impede the prescription. Prophylactic therapy is recommended in case of four or more headaches a month, eight or more headache days a month, debilitating headaches, and medication-overuse headaches. The available therapeutic options are in constant development. The classic one consists of non-specific drugs: β-blockers, tricyclics, antiepileptics, and botulinum toxin. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene receptor (CGRP) peptide or its receptor are the only ones specifically designed to treat migraine. Their efficiency and convenient safety profile have been demonstrated in a number of trials versus both placebo and classic therapies. The treatment of acute migraine attack consists of medications designed to affect the painful symptoms. For over 30 years, the cornerstones of treatment in clinical practice have continued to be represented by triptans and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), with the well-know related adverse effects. Opioids are used inappropriately and overprescribed. Polytherapy is strongly not recommended but is still a common practice because treatment is not optimized and thus not efficient. Great promise comes from gepants, also targeting CGRP, and ditans, 5-HT1F receptor agonists. They seem to outweigh the risk of medication overuse headache because of their efficacy and rapid onset and have no cardiovascular contraindications. Nonetheless, these points remain to be confirmed. Although therapies have been implemented in the last years, significant unmet treatment needs remain a reality in patients' lives. This commentary aims to identify the most important unmet needs in the acute treatment of migraine, analyzing the current status of available therapies and their limits. We also analyzed some of the prophylactic therapies available, especially focusing on anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies, to better understand the importance of setting a therapeutic strategy that includes the two modes, both acute and prophylactic, to reach the best result. We hope that having an overview of the shortcomings will help to provide constructive ideas for improvement.

Healthcare utilization impacts of an eConsult program for headache at an academic medical center

INTRODUCTION

Interprofessional consultations ("eConsults") can reduce healthcare utilization. However, the impact of eConsults on healthcare utilization remains poorly characterized among patients with headache.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, 1:1 matched cohort study comparing patients evaluated for headache via eConsult request or in-person referral at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Groups were matched on clinical and demographic characteristics. Our primary outcome was one or more outpatient headache-related encounters in 6 months following referral date. Secondary outcomes included one or more all-cause outpatient neurology and headache-related emergency department (ED) encounters during the same period. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to model associations between independent variables and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 74 patients with headache eConsults who were matched to 74 patients with in-person referrals. Patients in the eConsult group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome (29.7% vs 62.2%, P < 0.0001) or have an all-cause outpatient neurology encounter (33.8% vs 79.7%, P < 0.0001) than patients in the comparison group. Both groups did not significantly differ by headache-related ED encounters. In multivariable analyses, patients in the eConsult group had significantly lower odds of having one or more headache-related or all-cause neurology encounters than patients in the comparison group (odds ratio (OR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.6; OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.3, respectively).

DISCUSSION

In comparison to in-person referrals, eConsult requests for headache were associated with reduced likelihood of outpatient neurology encounters in the short-term but not with differential use of headache-related ED encounters. Larger-scale, prospective studies should validate our findings and assess patient outcomes.

Unique Considerations in Episodic Migraine: Underserved Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Episodic migraine is a common and disabling neurological disorder that is underdiagnosed and undertreated. Additional barriers are put in place for those who belong to an underserved population. This could be based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic status.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been a lot of interest in understanding the extent of these disparities, but studies for many of these groups are lacking. More work is needed to understand the disparities and needs of underserved populations. Most of the literature has been done for Black populations but there are many other underserved communities that need assessment and intervention. The healthcare community needs to take action to improve support for populations with a higher incidence of migraine and disability, yet a lower rate of diagnosis and treatment. Some recommendations include awareness of biases, systemic changes, education, and including diverse populations in research and training.

Migraine and the Gender Divide

Migraine is a global neurologic disease that is highly prevalent, especially in women. Studies have observed a predisposition for the development of migraine in women, although the mechanisms involved have yet to be fully elucidated. This review aimed to summarize the recent evidence regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of migraine and highlight key sex differences. We also identify gaps in care for both women and men living with migraine and discuss the presence of migraine-related stigma and how this may impact the efficacy of clinical care.

Real-World Analysis of Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Insufficient Responders and Responders to Prescribed Acute Migraine Treatment in China

INTRODUCTION

Migraine is a common disabling primary headache disorder characterized by attacks of severe pain, sometimes accompanied by symptoms including nausea and photo-/phono-phobia. Real-world data of patients with migraine who sufficiently (responders) and insufficiently (insufficient responders) respond to acute treatment (AT) are limited in China. This analysis explored whether responders to AT differ from insufficient responders in terms of clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient-reported outcomes in China.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of internists/neurologists and their consulting patients with migraine, conducted in a real-world setting in China, January-June 2014. Responders and insufficient responders to prescribed AT were patients who typically achieved headache pain freedom within 2 h of AT in ≥ 4 and ≤ 3 of five migraine attacks, respectively. Responders were compared with insufficient responders; logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with insufficient response.

RESULTS

Of 777 patients currently receiving AT, 44.0% were insufficient responders. Significantly fewer responders than insufficient responders had migraine with aura (13.1 vs. 23.8%; p = 0.0001). Responders reported a significantly lower mean Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) total score (5.5 vs. 6.6; p = 0.0325). Responders reported a lower mean impairment while working (50.0 vs. 63.9%; p < 0.0001), overall work impairment (52.6 vs. 66.0%; p < 0.0001), and activity impairment (48.9 vs. 59.0%; p < 0.0001). Statistically significant factors associated with insufficient response to AT included diabetes, unilateral pain, vomiting, sensitivity to smell, visual aura/sight disturbance, and an increase in MIDAS total score. However, there were no statistically significant differences in ATs received by responders and insufficient responders at any regimen of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with migraine in China are insufficient responders to AT, experiencing worse symptoms that lead to overall poorer quality of life than responders. This unmet need suggests that new effective treatment options are required for migraine.

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Patients with Episodic Migraine in China: Results from the Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™

Objective

This study assessed treatment patterns, disease burden, outcomes, and unmet needs among patients with episodic migraine (EM) in China using Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP) real-world data.

Background

Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating neurological disorder which presents a major public health burden globally. Research on characteristics, disease burden, and treatment patterns in EM patients in China is limited.

Methods

Data were drawn from an existing data set Adelphi Migraine DSP, a point-in-time survey conducted in China (January-June 2014). Internists/neurologists completed patient record forms for the next 9 patients who consulted them in clinical practice; these same patients completed the 'patient self-completion questionnaires'. Descriptive analyses were used to assess key variables: patient demographics, treatment patterns (current acute and preventive medication [AM/PM]), effectiveness, issues with existing treatment, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) scores, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scores.

Results

Total of 125 internists/neurologists provided data on 1113 patients with EM (headache days/month <15). Mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 43.8 (13.1) years; mean (SD) number of migraine days/month was 3.2 (1.7). AM was prescribed in 86.1% of patients (non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]: 62.7%; triptans: 7.7%), PM in 38.5%, and both in 24.9% of patients. Approximately 55% of patients experienced ≥1 issue with their current AM or PM. Migraine-related symptoms (including nausea, photophobia, and phonophobia) were fully controlled in <50% of patients receiving NSAIDs (21.7-38.4%) or triptans (32.4-43.5%). Insufficient response to current AM (migraine headache fully resolved within 2 hours in ≤3/5 attacks) was reported by 42.5% of patients. Mild-to-severe disability was reported by 36.8% of patients with a mean (SD) MIDAS score of 5.8 (7.3). Overall, 58.0% of work time was impaired (including time missed and impairment while working).

Conclusion

This analysis suggests, despite existing treatment options, disease burden and unmet medical needs remain substantial in Chinese patients with EM.

Fremanezumab for Migraine Prevention in Japanese Elderly Aged Over 70 Years Old

Background Elderly migraine is a public health problem with prolonged life expectancy, and effective prophylactic treatment is needed. There were no reports on fremanezumab for the elderly. We described the real-world data of fremanezumab, calcitonin gene-related peptide-related monoclonal antibody (CGRP-mAB), for migraine in elderly over 70 years old. Methods We retrospectively investigated six elderly migraine patients over 70 years old treated with fremanezumab. Headache impact test-6 (HIT-6), monthly headache days (MHD), and monthly acute medication intake days (AMD) before one and three months after starting fremanezumab treatment were evaluated. Results Three women and three men (median age 78; range: 71-99) were included. One was chronic migraine (CM), three were CM and medication-overuse headache, and two were episodic migraine and tension-type headache. All six patients received monthly fremanezumab. The median MHD before, during one, and three months after treatment were 30 (4-30), 30 (4-30), and 29 (15-30, n=4). Those of AMD were 17 (0-30), 9.5 (0-30), and 1 (0-28). Those about HIT-6 were 64 (56-72), 59.5 (52-70), and 55.5 (48-64). Two (33.3%) of the six patients experienced therapeutic effectiveness. There were no side effects. Conclusion We described the six elderly migraine patients aged over 70 years old treated with fremanezumab. Two (33.3%) of the six patients experienced therapeutic effectiveness. This is the first report of fremanezumab for elderly migraine patients aged over 70 years old. Further evidence accumulation is needed about CGRP-mABs for the elderly.

Global Epidemiology, Clinical Features, Diagnosis and Current Therapeutic Novelties in Migraine Therapy and their Prevention: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

The current article reviews the latest information on epidemiology, clinical features, diagnosis, recent advancements in clinical management, current therapeutic novelties, and the prevention of migraines. In a narrative review, all studies as per developed MeSH terms published until February 2023, excluding those irrelevant, were identified through a PubMed literature search.

METHODS

Overall, migraine affects more than a billion people annually and is one of the most common neurological illnesses. A wide range of comorbidities is associated with migraines, including stress and sleep disturbances. To lower the worldwide burden of migraine, comprehensive efforts are required to develop and enhance migraine treatment, which is supported by informed healthcare policy. Numerous migraine therapies have been successful, but not all patients benefit from them.

RESULTS

CGRP pathway-targeted therapy demonstrates the importance of translating mechanistic understanding into effective treatment. In this review, we discuss clinical features, diagnosis, and recently approved drugs, as well as a number of potential therapeutic targets, including pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP), adenosine, opioid receptors, potassium channels, transient receptor potential ion channels (TRP), and acid-sensing ion channels (ASIC).

CONCLUSION

In addition to providing more treatment options for improved clinical care, a better understanding of these mechanisms facilitates the discovery of novel therapeutic targets.

Monoclonal Antibodies Against the Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide and Its Receptor in Japanese Adolescents With Migraines

Introduction Adolescent migraines is a public health problem, and effective prophylactic treatment is needed. In Japan, three types of calcitonin gene-related peptide-related monoclonal antibodies (CGRP-mABs) are available. Galcanezumab, fremanezumab, and erenumab can be used for migraine prevention in ages 15 years or older, but reports on adolescent migraine treated with CGRP-mABs remain few. We described this study to report the real-world data of CGRP-mABs' efficacy for adolescents with migraines aged from 15 to 17 years old. Methods We retrospectively investigated ten adolescent migraine patients aged from 15 to 17 years old treated with CGRP-mABs. Headache impact test-6 (HIT-6), monthly headache days (MHD), and monthly acute medication intake days (AMD) before and three months after CGRP-mABs treatment were evaluated. Results Six females and four males were included. Seven had episodic migraines (EM), three had EM and tension-type headaches, one had chronic migraines (CM), and one had CM and medication-overuse headaches. As chief obstacles to life due to headaches, five reported them as detrimental to study, one reported them as detrimental to playing sports, and four reported missing school. The median HIT-6 was 63 (46-68) and 44 (36-65) before and three months after treatment, respectively. Median of MHD was 5.5 (1-29) and 1.5 (1-30), respectively, and the median of AMD was 5.5 (1-30) and 1 (0-30), respectively. A significant reduction of HIT-6 was observed at three months (p=0.008). Six (60%) of the ten patients experienced therapeutic effectiveness. Patients with missing school as the chief obstacle to life due to headaches seemed ineffective compared to those with other obstacles (p=0.048). There were no side effects of CGRP-mABs. Conclusion We herein described the ten adolescent migraine patients treated with CGRP-mABs. HIT-6 score significantly decreased at three months, and six of the ten patients experienced therapeutic effectiveness measured by HIT-6. Now several trials have been ongoing to test the efficacy of CGRP-mABs for adolescents. Urgent evidence accumulation is needed about CGRP-mABs for adolescents.

Safety profile of lasmiditan in patients with migraine in an Asian population

BACKGROUND

MONONOFU, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 study of Japanese patients with migraine, was pivotal for lasmiditan approval in Japan. However, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common than in global studies. A detailed safety profile would assist patient management.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Safety assessments in MONONOFU included specific terms reported, frequency, severity, time to onset, duration, TEAE management, common TEAE risk factors, and TEAE-efficacy associations.

RESULTS

Of 846 participants, 691 were assessed for safety. The proportion of participants reporting ≥1 TEAE was 23.4% with placebo and 70.9% with lasmiditan; 87.3% of TEAEs with lasmiditan were mild. The most frequent TEAEs with lasmiditan, dizziness (39.4%) and somnolence (19.3%), started ≤1 hour postdose (median durations: 2.5 and 3.3 hours, respectively). Higher lasmiditan dose, but not patient factors including body size, was identified as a clinically meaningful predictor of dizziness and somnolence. There were no adverse consequences of neurological TEAEs, which did not appear to adversely affect lasmiditan efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the MONONOFU study, TEAEs appeared typically mild, transient, and self-limiting. Lasmiditan may represent a useful and well-tolerated acute treatment option for smaller (body mass index <30 kg/m²) patients and Asian patients with migraine.

Understanding headache classification coding within the veterans health administration using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM in fiscal years 2014-2017

OBJECTIVES

Understand the continuity and changes in headache not-otherwise-specified (NOS), migraine, and post-traumatic headache (PTH) diagnoses after the transition from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

BACKGROUND

Headache is one of the most commonly diagnosed chronic conditions managed within primary and specialty care clinics. The VHA transitioned from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM on October-1-2015. The effect transitioning on coding of specific headache diagnoses is unknown. Accuracy of headache diagnosis is important since different headache types respond to different treatments.

METHODS

We mapped headache diagnoses from ICD-9-CM (FY 2014/2015) onto ICD-10-CM (FY 2016/2017) and computed coding proportions two years before/after the transition in VHA. We used queries to determine the change in transition pathways. We report the odds of ICD-10-CM coding associated with ICD-9-CM controlling for provider type, and patient age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

RESULTS

Only 37%, 58% and 34% of patients with ICD-9-CM coding of NOS, migraine, and PTH respectively had an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis. Of those with an ICD-10-CM diagnosis, 73-79% had a single headache diagnosis. The odds ratios for receiving the same code in both ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM after adjustment for ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM headache comorbidities and sociodemographic factors were high (range 6-26) and statistically significant. Specifically, 75% of patients with headache NOS had received one headache diagnoses (Adjusted headache NOS-ICD-9-CM OR for headache NOS-ICD-10-CM = 6.1, 95% CI 5.89-6.32. 79% of migraineurs had one headache diagnoses, mostly migraine (Adjusted migraine-ICD-9-CM OR for migraine-ICD-10-CM = 26.43, 95% CI 25.51-27.38). The same held true for PTH (Adjusted PTH-ICD-9-CM OR for PTH-ICD-10-CM = 22.92, 95% CI: 18.97-27.68). These strong associations remained after adjustment for specialist care in ICD-10-CM follow-up period.

DISCUSSION

The majority of people with ICD-9-CM headache diagnoses did not have an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis. However, a given diagnosis in ICD-9-CM by a primary care provider (PCP) was significantly predictive of its assignment in ICD-10-CM as was seeing either a neurologist or physiatrist (compared to a generalist) for an ICD-10-CM headache diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

When a veteran had a specific diagnosis in ICD-9-CM, the odds of being coded with the same diagnosis in ICD-10-CM were significantly higher. Specialist visit during the ICD-10-CM period was independently associated with all three ICD-10-CM headaches.

Chinese herbal medicine for migraine management: A hospital-based retrospective analysis of electronic medical records

Background

Migraine is a chronic neurological disease causing significant socioeconomic burden and impaired quality of life. Chinese medicine is commonly used for migraine in China. Clinical trials have generated evidence of the effectiveness of Chinese medicine therapies for migraine. However, little is known about how to use these therapies to treat migraine in real-world clinical settings.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed data from the electronic medical records (EMRs) of 2,023 migraine patients who attended the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) between July 2018 and July 2020.

Results

More than three-quarters (77.21%) of the patients were female. Most (78.20%) of the patients were aged between 18 and 50 years, 18.49% were aged above 50 years, and the remaining 3.31% were under 18 years. Sleep disorders were the most documented comorbidity occurring in 27.29% of patients, and more common in females (29.77%) than male (18.87%). Fatigue was the most frequently reported trigger of migraine attacks among all patients (9.39%), while menstruation was the most common trigger for female patients (10.24%). Less than a quarter of patients (21.01%) reported a history of taking analgesic medication for their migraine. The median treatment duration reported by the patients was 10 days. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) was the predominant treatment for migraine at the hospital (88.48%), while pharmacotherapies were prescribed to 28.97% of the patients. CHM was prescribed more often as a sole treatment (53.58% of patients) than combined with pharmacotherapies (27.39% of patients). Among patients who reported improvements after taking CHM, the most frequently used herbs were fu ling and chuan xiong, the most frequent patented CHM product was tong tian oral solution, and the main herbal formulae were chuan xiong cha tiao san and yi qi cong ming tang.

Conclusion

CHM formulae, such as chuan xiong cha tiao san and yi qi cong ming tang, patented CHM product tong tian oral solution, and some herbs are potentially effective treatments for migraine. As such, CHM can be used as an alternative to conventional pharmacotherapies for migraine and is worth further evaluation in randomized controlled trials.

Safety Findings in Lasmiditan as a Novel Acute Treatment of Migraine in Chinese Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Randomized Controlled Phase 3 CENTURION Trial

INTRODUCTION

Lasmiditan is the first 5-HT_1F receptor agonist with potential to address the huge unmet medical needs for the treatment of migraine in China. The CENTURION study was the first phase 3 study of lasmiditan in Caucasian and Chinese patients with migraine. This post hoc analysis further demonstrates the safety profile of lasmiditan in the Chinese population and was urgently needed.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to lasmiditan 200 mg lasmiditan 100 mg, or a control group. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), their severity, and incidence by treated attacks for frequently reported TEAEs (≥ 5%) were evaluated. The duration, onset, and relationship of efficacy with very common TEAEs (≥ 10%) was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 281 Chinese patients were included in this post hoc analysis. No deaths and no study drug-related treatment emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were reported. The incidence of at least one TEAE was higher in patients receiving lasmiditan 200 mg (73.9%) and 100 mg (66.3%) versus placebo (26.6%). TEAEs were generally mild or moderate in severity, and the incidence of frequently reported TEAEs was generally highest during the first attack. Very common TEAEs with lasmiditan included dizziness, asthenia, somnolence, muscular weakness, fatigue, and nausea. The duration of dizziness was longest during the first attack. There were no cardio-cerebrovascular ischemic events and serotonin syndrome. The presence of very common TEAEs (except nausea), and severe dizziness, did not appear to have a negative influence on the efficacy.

CONCLUSION

In the Chinese population of the CENTURION study, most of the TEAEs were neurologic, of mild or moderate severity, and self-limiting. The distribution of frequently reported TEAEs at the first attack differed from the primary cohort, while the overall safety profile of lasmiditan in the Chinese population was generally consistent with the CENTURION primary cohort. No new safety concerns were observed in the Chinese population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03670810.

Rapid Onset and Sustained Efficacy of Lasmiditan Among Japanese Patients with Migraine: Prespecified Analyses of a Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Rapid onset and sustained efficacy are important for acute migraine treatment. Global phase 3 trials have demonstrated the early onset and sustained efficacy of the 5-HT_1F receptor agonist lasmiditan. In this prespecified analysis of the MONONOFU study, we assessed the onset and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan in Japanese patients with migraine.

METHODS

MONONOFU was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study conducted in Japan (May 2019-June 2020). Eligible adults with migraine (N = 846; modified intent-to-treat population, N = 682) were randomized 7:3:7:6 to placebo, lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, or 200 mg, taken orally within 4 h of moderate-to-severe migraine onset. Patients recorded headache severity and symptoms predose and 0.5-48 h postdose. Sustained and modified sustained pain freedom were defined as patients who were headache pain-free 2 h postdose and had no pain (sustained pain freedom) or had mild or no pain (modified sustained pain freedom) at 24 or 48 h without rescue/recurrence medications. Efficacy outcomes were analyzed by logistic regression. Patients also recorded the actual time of pain-free and of meaningful pain relief (Kaplan-Meier analysis).

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, significantly more lasmiditan-treated (100 or 200 mg) patients were headache pain-free, had pain relief, were free of their most bothersome symptom, or had total migraine freedom (no headache or migraine-associated symptoms) within 30-60 min. Median time to pain-free was 9.26, 6.88, 2.75, and 2.30 h in placebo, 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg lasmiditan groups, respectively. Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with 100 (19.7-29.5%) or 200 mg (21.1-35.7%) lasmiditan had sustained or modified sustained pain freedom at 24 or 48 h compared with placebo (10.4-15.8%).

CONCLUSION

This prespecified analysis of data from MONONOFU has confirmed that the efficacy of lasmiditan is rapid in onset and sustained in patients with moderate-to-severe migraine in Japan.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03962738).

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.

Migraine history and response to lasmiditan across racial and ethnic groups

OBJECTIVE

The robust enrollment in SPARTAN and SAMURAI provided the opportunity to present post-hoc descriptive details on migraine disease characteristics and treatment outcomes after treatment with lasmiditan, a selective serotonin (5-HT_1F) receptor agonist, in racial and ethnic subgroups.

METHODS

Descriptive data from racial (White [W](n = 3471) and Black or African American [AA](n = 792)) and ethnic (Hispanic or Latinx [HL](n = 775) and Non-Hispanic or Latinx [Non-HL](n = 3637)) populations are presented on pooled data from two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized Phase 3 studies (SAMURAI [NCT02439320] and SPARTAN [NCT2605174]). Patients were treated with lasmiditan (50 (SPARTAN only), 100, or 200 mg) or placebo for a single migraine attack of moderate-to-severe intensity. Efficacy data were recorded in an electronic diary at baseline, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min. Safety was evaluated and reported by occurrences of adverse events.

RESULTS

Clinical characteristics were generally similar across populations. W participants had longer migraine history than AA participants, and Non-HL participants had more migraine disability than HL participants. In the lasmiditan single-attack studies, AA participants waited longer than W participants to take study drug. A higher proportion of HL participants rated baseline migraine severity as severe compared to Non-HL participants. Response to lasmiditan was similar across racial and ethnic groups, including pain response, freedom from most bothersome symptom and migraine-related disability, and safety and tolerability. Across multiple outcomes, AA and HL participants tended to report more positive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were few differences in demographic and clinical characteristics across racial and ethnic groups. Similar lasmiditan efficacy and safety outcomes were observed in AA versus W participants, and in HL versus Non-HL participants. Small observed differences may be driven by a tendency toward a more positive response observed across all treatment groups by AA and HL participants.

Migraine patients visiting Chinese medicine hospital: Protocol for a prospective, registry-based, real-world observational cohort study

Introduction

Migraine is a disabling, recurrent headache disorder with complex comorbidities. Conventional treatments for migraine are unsatisfactory, with side effects and limited effectiveness. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has been used as an alternative or complementary treatment option for migraine in China. Currently, the existing evidence of benefit of CHM for migraine has been generated from randomised clinical trials using standardised intervention with a focus on internal validity hence with limited external validity. Moreover, CHM individualised intervention design, patients’ preferences and concerns, and clinicians’ experience are critical to clinical decision making and therapeutic success. This real-world observational study aims to gather practice-based evidence of effects and safety of CHM for migraine in the context of integrating Chinese medicine diagnostic procedures, patients’ preferences and matters relevant to clinical decision making.

Methods and analysis

The study is being undertaken at the Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (GPHCM) from December 2020 to May 2022. We anticipate that approximately 400 adult migraineurs will be enrolled and observed on their migraine severity, analgesic consumption, quality of life, anxiety, depression and insomnia at baseline and then every four weeks over 12 weeks. Treatments, diagnostic information, and patient-reported most bothersome symptoms will be collected from patient clinical records. Patient’s demographic data, preferences and concerns on CHM treatments will also be gathered at baseline and be analysed. Factors related to clinical outcomes will be explored with multiple correlation and multivariable regression analyses. Effects of CHM will be evaluated using generalised estimated equation, based on clinical outcome data.

Discussion

This study will provide comprehensive evidence of CHM for migraine in the context of evidence-based practice.

Trial registration number

ChiCTR2000041003

The Primary Care Management of Headache: Synopsis of the 2020 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

INTRODUCTION

In June of 2020, the U.S. DVA and DoD approved a new joint clinical practice guideline for assessing and managing patients with headache. This guideline provides a framework to evaluate, treat, and longitudinally manage the individual needs and preferences of patients with headache.

METHODS

In October of 2018, the DVA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group convened a guideline development panel that included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

The guideline panel developed key questions, systematically searched and evaluated the literature, created a 1-page algorithm, and advanced 42 recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

CONCLUSION

This synopsis summarizes the key features of the guideline in three areas: prevention, assessing and treating medication overuse headache, and nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of headache.

Ubrogepant Is Safe and Efficacious in Participants Taking Concomitant Preventive Medication for Migraine: A Pooled Analysis of Phase 3 Trials

INTRODUCTION

Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist indicated for acute treatment of migraine that can be used to treat breakthrough attacks in individuals taking preventive treatment for migraine. We evaluated the impact of preventive medication use on the efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

METHODS

This was an analysis of pooled efficacy data from the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II phase 3 trials, in which efficacy of ubrogepant was assessed at 2 h after taking study medication for pain freedom, absence of most bothersome symptom (MBS), and pain relief. In addition, a long-term safety (LTS) extension trial was completed where safety was assessed on the basis of incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Outcomes were compared between participants with or without prior (within 6 months) preventive medication use (anticonvulsants, beta blockers, antidepressants, or onabotulinumtoxinA). For efficacy analyses, data were pooled across ACHIEVE trials for the 50 mg and placebo groups; for safety analyses, data for all dose groups (50 mg and 100 mg) in the LTS trial were pooled.

RESULTS

Preventive treatments were used by 417 of 2247 (18.6%) participants analyzed in the ACHIEVE trials and by 143 of 813 (17.5%) participants in the LTS trial. Responder rates for all outcomes were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment within each dose group (p > 0.05). No significant differences were noted across the different preventive medications. Rates and types of TEAEs were similar between participants with or without preventive treatment. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

Efficacy and safety of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine were similar between participants with or without prior or current use of concomitant preventive medication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02828020 (ACHIEVE I), NCT02867709 (ACHIEVE II), and NCT02873221 (long-term safety trial).

External Trigeminal Nerve Stimulation as a Non-pharmacological Option for the Prevention and Acute Treatment of Migraine

Migraine is a common condition affecting approximately 1.04 billion people worldwide. Despite the available pharmaceutical therapies, patients with migraine often prefer, or may require, non-medicinal treatments for their disease. External trigeminal nerve stimulation (e-TNS) is a non-invasive, non-drug device treatment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the prevention and acute treatment of migraine. The trigeminovascular system plays a key role in migraine pathophysiology; e-TNS percutaneously stimulates the supraorbital and supratrochlear branches of the ophthalmic division of the trigeminal nerve. This article reviews published studies of e-TNS in the prevention and acute treatment of migraine, highlights the versatility of e-TNS in individualizing migraine treatment and discusses future directions for research and clinical applications of e-TNS therapy.

Budget impact of lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in the United States

BACKGROUND: Three novel acute treatments for migraine-lasmiditan, ubrogepant, and rimegepant-were approved by the FDA in 2019 and 2020 for adults with migraine with and without aura. American Headache Society guidance recommends that these novel acute treatments be considered for patients who are contraindicated to or fail to respond or tolerate oral triptans, the current standard of acute care. OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a US commercial plan perspective, the budget impact of adding lasmiditan as an option to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant. METHODS: Epidemiologic data were drawn from US Census data, the American Migraine Prevalence and Preventive study, and the first wave of the OVERCOME US survey, a web-based survey that included 21,000 patients with migraine. A model with a 3-year time horizon was built assuming that demand for the novel acute treatments would not vary based on whether lasmiditan is included in the formulary. The model examined a variety of populations, in particular beneficiaries with previous use of 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans and beneficiaries with previous use of 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to triptans. Primary outcomes were the incremental differences in total cost and average cost per member per month (PMPM) between scenarios with and without lasmiditan. One-way sensitivity analyses with model parameters that were varied by plus or minus 15% were conducted to assess the effect of key parameters on the incremental total cost over 3 years. RESULTS: The addition of lasmiditan to a formulary that already includes ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in a total savings of -$927,657 (-1.5% compared with the scenario without lasmiditan) over a 3-year time horizon in the population with previous history of using 1 or more oral triptans or contraindicated to a triptan. In the population with previous history of using 2 or more oral triptans or contraindicated, the addition of lasmiditan resulted in a total budget impact of -$466,518 (-1.3%) over a 3-year time horizon. Most of the cost savings was attributable to reductions in drug acquisition cost. Savings in total costs resulted in average incremental cost per PMPM of -0.03 and -$0.01, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of lasmiditan to the formulary as a novel acute treatment option for migraine alongside ubrogepant and rimegepant resulted in lower budget impact on a 3-year time horizon from a US commercial payer's perspective. This result is important to US commercial payers as they seek to incorporate the emerging novel acute treatments for migraine into their benefit designs. DISCLOSURES: This work was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Milev and Sun are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company for work on this project. Pohl, Mason, Njuguna, and Loo are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

The Effect and Safety of 5-HT1F Receptor Agonist Lasmiditan on Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Migraine has a great impact on public health. Current acute therapies do not satisfy all migraineurs. The novel serotonin 5-HT1F receptor agonist appears more promising for aborting migraine attacks.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of lasmiditan in treating acute migraine attacks.

METHODS

The literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the effect and safety of lasmiditan on migraine. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Results were extracted and pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with a fixed or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Based on the four included RCTs, pooled estimates showed that lasmiditan with the 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg doses was superior to placebo at 2 h after the first dose in terms of pain freedom, absence of migraine-associated symptoms, headache relief, no/mild disability, and global impression of change (very much/much better) (RRs ranged from 1.13 to 1.96), except for nausea-free and vomiting-free. Both lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg resulted in significantly fewer patients using rescue medication (100 mg: RR = 0.75, 95% CI (0.61, 0.92), P = 0.007; 200 mg: RR = 0.81, 95% CI (0.66, 0.99), P = 0.04) at 2-24 h postdose, compared with placebo. Safety data showed that the proportion of patients reporting at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) and the incidence of most common TEAEs such as dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, somnolence, and nausea was higher in the lasmiditan groups (50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg), compared with placebo. There was no significant difference between lasmiditan and placebo in terms of cardiovascular-related TEAEs (RR = 2.75, 95% CI (0.81, 9.37), P = 0.11). Compared with lasmiditan 100 mg, lasmiditan 200 mg was more effective in pain freedom at 2 h after the first dose (RR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.74, 0.94), P = 0.004) but associated with a higher risk of reporting at least one TEAE (RR = 0.88, 95% CI (0.81, 0.96), P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Lasmiditan with the 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg doses are effective and safe in acute migraine treatment. Lasmiditan 200 mg is more effective than lasmiditan 100 mg in pain freedom, while lasmiditan 100 mg is better tolerated in the short-term follow-up. Further larger sample-size RCTs are required to verify the applicability and tolerability in the long term.

A Framework for Estimating the Eligible Patient Population for New Migraine Acute Therapies in the United States

Introduction

Migraine is associated with considerable disability for patients not adequately managed with current standards of care. New acute therapies may offer relief for this population of patients; however, population size and associated potential costs of new therapies are unclear. In this study, a conceptual framework was developed to estimate anticipated use of new acute therapies.

Methods

Targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to identify factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies, and characteristics of individuals who would be eligible for new acute therapies. Findings from the TLR were combined to create a framework for estimating the size of the eligible patient population. This framework was used to calculate two estimates of the eligible patient population by applying parameters (i) identified in the TLR and (ii) from a recent budget-impact analysis (BIA).

Results

The primary factors affecting access to migraine-specific acute therapies identified in the TLR were consulting a healthcare professional for headache, receiving a migraine diagnosis, and receiving a prescription for migraine-specific treatment. Characteristics of individuals likely to use new acute therapies reflected in the TLR were contraindication to triptans, or failure to respond to/tolerate at least two oral triptans. Application of the framework suggested that 15–25% of individuals with migraine would be eligible for new acute therapies.

Conclusion

A limited number of patients currently use migraine-specific acute therapies. Among such patients, a significant proportion do not have adequate symptom control. Accordingly, a minority of individuals with migraine may be expected to use new acute therapies. The framework developed in this study is intended to facilitate estimating the eligible patient population in assessments of costs of new acute therapies. Such assessments should also consider recommendations that patients have access to multiple types of acute therapies, which may yield savings from reduced medication-overuse headache (MOH), progression to chronic migraine, and urgent-care costs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01781-z.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Lasmiditan for Acute Treatment of Migraine in Adults: A Meta-Analysis

Monotherapy with triptans in acute migraine is ineffective in many patients and contraindicated in certain cardiovascular diseases where alternative therapeutic options are necessary to explore. This meta-analysis has evaluated the efficacy and safety of lasmiditan for the treatment of acute migraine in adults. After performing a literature search on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane databases, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted data from 4 relevant articles. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were followed in the selection, analysis, and reporting of findings. A random-effects model was used to estimate effect size. Quality assessment was done using the risk of bias assessment tool and meta-regression for probable variables affecting effect size. Subgroup analysis was done depending on the dose of lasmiditan. Lasmiditan use was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients with pain freedom (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-2.39; P < .00001), sustained pain freedom (OR, 1.93; 95%CI, 1.55-2.39; P <.00001), headache response (OR, 2.05; 95%CI, 1.77-2.36; P < .00001), clinical disability level (OR, 1.36; 95%CI, 1.20-1.55; P < .00001), patients' global impression (OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.69-2.10; P < .00001), and significantly lower use of rescue medication (OR, 0.49; 95%CI, 0.38-0.63; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Lasmiditan use was also associated with a higher likelihood of adverse effects like dizziness (OR, 6.54; 95%CI, 4.24-10.07; P < .00001), paresthesia (OR, 4.28; 95%CI, 2.97-6.17; P < .00001), and fatigue (OR, 5.67; 95%CI, 3.78-8.52; P < .00001) compared to placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a dose-dependent effect of lasmiditan on pain freedom, sustained pain freedom, patient's global impression, and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Prediction probability for effect estimate favoring placebo was calculated to be 0.0017%. Lasmiditan has shown a favorable effect in terms of efficacy and safety in the treatment of an acute attack of migraine in comparison to placebo. Further studies are needed to evaluate long-term safety, efficacy, and use in specific subgroups of patients. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020177838.

Factors Associated With, and Mitigation Strategies for, Health Care Disparities Faced by Patients With Headache Disorders

OBJECTIVE

To review contemporary issues of health care disparities in headache medicine with regard to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), and geography and propose solutions for addressing these disparities.

METHODS

An Internet and PubMed search was performed and literature was reviewed for key concepts underpinning disparities in headache medicine. Content was refined to areas most salient to our goal of informing the provision of equitable care in headache treatment through discussions with a group of 16 experts from a range of headache subspecialties.

RESULTS

Taken together, a multitude of factors, including racism, SES, insurance status, and geographical disparities, contribute to the inequities that exist within the health care system when treating headache disorders. Interventions such as improving public education, advocacy, optimizing telemedicine, engaging in community outreach to educate primary care providers, training providers in cultural sensitivity and competence and implicit bias, addressing health literacy, and developing recruitment strategies to increase representation of underserved groups within headache research are proposed as solutions to ameliorate disparities.

CONCLUSION

Neurologists have a responsibility to provide and deliver equitable care to all. It is important that disparities in the management of headache disorders are identified and addressed.

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.

Survey of Pain Medicine Specialists' Familiarity with Migraine Management

OBJECTIVE

Pain specialists treat patients with headache and interface with those who use opioids more so than neurologists and headache specialists. We assessed headache medicine knowledge and needs of pain specialists.

DESIGN/SETTING

Cross-sectional online survey.

SUBJECTS

Members of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

METHODS

Survey was based on a prior survey on primary care providers' knowledge and needs and was iteratively updated by four headache specialists, two with pain medicine affiliations.

RESULTS

Of the 105 respondents, 71.4% were physicians, 34.3% were women, and they averaged 20.0 ± 13.6 years in practice. The most common specialty was anesthesia (36.1%, n = 35/97) followed by neurology (14.4%, n = 14/97). About half of providers (55.7%, n = 34/61 and 53.3%, n = 32/60) were familiar with the American Academy of Neurology Guidelines for pharmacological migraine prevention and the Choosing Wisely Campaign recommendations for limiting neuroimaging and opioids. Less than half of all providers (39.7%, n = 23/58) were familiar with the American Headache Society guidelines for emergency management of migraine. Providers were aware of Level A evidence-based nonpharmacological therapies, with over three-fourths recognizing cognitive behavioral therapy (80.7%, n = 50/62) and biofeedback (75.8%, n = 47/62) as evidence-based interventions. About 80% of providers (n = 50/64) estimate making migraine diagnoses in ≤ 50% of their patients with headache. Providers consider starting preventive headache therapy at 7.1 ± 3.9 days/month and report referring 34.3%±34.2% of patients to behavioral interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Dissemination and implementation of headache guidelines is needed for pain medicine specialists. Providers may need help diagnosing migraine based on currently accepted guidelines and referring for evidence-based behavioral therapies.

Treatment Realities of Headache Disorders in Rural Germany by the Example of the Region of Western Pomerania

(1) Background: Headache disorders are among the most disabling medical conditions but the supply with experienced providers is outpaced by the demand for service. It is unclear to what extent particularly patients in rural regions are affected by limited access to comprehensive care. Furthermore, it is unknown what role general practitioners (GPs) play in headache care. (2) Methods: First-time consultations to a specialised headache clinic at a tertiary care centre were asked to participate. Their socio-demographic background, general and headache-specific medical history, disability and quality of life (QoL) were assessed. Additionally, 176 GPs in neighbouring districts were contacted regarding headache management. (3) Results: We assessed 162 patients with first-time consultations (age 46.1 ± 17.0 years, 78.1% female), who suffered from migraine (72%), tension type, cluster and secondary headaches (each 5-10%). About 50% of patients received a new headache-diagnosis and 60% had treatment inconsistent with national guidelines. QoL was significantly worse in all domains compared to the general population. About 75% of GPs see headache patients at least several times per week, and mostly treat them by themself. (4) Conclusions: More than every second headache patient was neither correctly diagnosed nor received guideline adherent treatment. Headache-related disability is inferior to what is expected from previous studies. Access to specialised health care is more limited in rural than in urban regions in Germany and GPs request more training.

Ubrogepant for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: Pooled Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability From the ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II Phase 3 Randomized Trials

INTRODUCTION

Ubrogepant is an oral, small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine. The efficacy and safety of ubrogepant were demonstrated in two pivotal phase 3, single-attack, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (ACHIEVE I and ACHIEVE II).

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of pooled data from the ACHIEVE trials to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg (the only dose evaluated in both trials) versus placebo across a large population of participants with migraine. The coprimary efficacy outcomes were pain freedom and absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom (including photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 h post dose. Secondary outcomes included pain relief at 2 h post dose, sustained pain relief and pain freedom from 2 to 24 h, and absence of specific migraine-associated symptoms at 2 h post dose.

RESULTS

A total of 2240 eligible participants were randomized to placebo (n = 1122) or ubrogepant 50 mg (n = 1118) in the ACHIEVE trials. Pain freedom at 2 h was reported in 13.0% of participants in the pooled placebo group and 20.5% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (odds ratio [OR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34, 2.22; P < 0.001). Absence of the most bothersome migraine-associated symptom at 2 h was reported by 27.6% in the pooled placebo group and by 38.7% in the pooled ubrogepant 50 mg group (OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.37, 2.05; P < 0.001). Adverse events (AEs) within 48 h after the initial or optional second dose were reported by 11.5 and 11.2% of participants in the pooled placebo and pooled ubrogepant 50 mg groups, respectively. The most common AE was nausea (1.8 and 1.9%, respectively). No serious AEs related to treatment or discontinuations due to AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

These results further support the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of migraine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: ACHIEVE I: NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II: NCT02867709.

Burden of migraine and unmet needs from the patients' perspective: a survey across 11 specialized headache clinics in Korea

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a neurological, primary headache disorder affecting more than 1 billion people worldwide, with a multi-faceted burden that can significantly impact the everyday life of a patient, both during and between attacks. However, studies on patient awareness, burden, and clinical management of migraine in Korea are limited and outdated. The aim of this study was to comprehensively investigate the current difficulties and unmet needs that Korean patients with migraine encounter from their perspective.

METHODS

A total of 207 patients with episodic or chronic migraine aged between 15 and 76 years, completed a survey designed to cover the following topics: diagnosis, understanding of the disease, treatment experience, disability, and quality of life. Patients were recruited by their neurologists from 11 specialized headache clinics in Korea and completed the survey between 22 July and 19 August 2019. Validated scales such as the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire and Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire version 2.1 (MSQv2.1) were used to assess levels of disability and quality of life, respectively, in patients.

RESULTS

On average, it took 10.1 years from onset of symptoms to diagnosis and a mean of 3.9 hospitals were visited for treatment prior to the patient's current hospital. There was a lack of understanding among respondents about migraine, with 55.6% believing that unilateral headache is a unique feature of migraine compared with other headache disorders. On average, high levels of disability and poor quality of life were reported by patients, as assessed by MIDAS and MSQv2.1, respectively, but only 23.7% had regularly taken preventive medication in the past. Overall satisfaction with previous doctor-patient relationships was reported by 29.5% of respondents, and satisfaction with preventive and acute medications by only 40.8% and 27.1% of the respondents, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Korean patients with migraine experience significant disability and reduced quality of life as a result of the disease and have clear unmet needs in terms of diagnosis, understanding of the disease, and disease management including treatment.

Safety and efficacy of ubrogepant in participants with major cardiovascular risk factors in two single-attack phase 3 randomized trials: ACHIEVE I and II

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine across cardiovascular (CV) disease risk categories.

METHODS

ACHIEVE I and II were multicenter, double-blind, single-attack, phase 3 trials in adults with migraine, with or without aura. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to placebo or ubrogepant (50 or 100 mg in ACHIEVE I; 25 or 50 mg in ACHIEVE II), to treat one migraine attack of moderate or severe headache pain intensity. This post-hoc analysis pooled data from ubrogepant 50 mg and placebo groups from the ACHIEVE trials to examine the safety and efficacy of ubrogepant by baseline cardiovascular disease risk factors. Using a cardiovascular risk assessment algorithm, participants were categorized as having no cardiovascular risk, low cardiovascular risk or moderate-high cardiovascular risk at baseline. Treatment-emergent adverse events were documented 48 h and 30 days after taking the trial medication. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were 2-h pain freedom and 2-h absence of most bothersome migraine-associated symptom.

RESULTS

Overall, 3358 participants were randomized in the ACHIEVE trials (n = 2901 safety population; n = 2682 modified intent-to-treat population). In the safety population, 11% of participants were categorized as moderate-high (n = 311), 32% low (n = 920), and 58% no cardiovascular risk factors (n = 1670). The proportion of ubrogepant participants reporting a treatment-emergent adverse event was comparable across risk categories and similar to placebo. The treatment effects of ubrogepant versus placebo were consistent across cardiovascular risk categories for all efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of ubrogepant for the acute treatment of a single migraine attack did not differ by the presence of major cardiovascular risk factors. No evidence of increased treatment-emergent adverse events or cardiac system organ class adverse events with ≥2 major cardiovascular risk factors and no safety concerns were identified.Trial Registration: ACHIEVE I ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02828020; ACHIEVE II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02867709.

Migraine: integrated approaches to clinical management and emerging treatments

Migraine is a highly disabling neurological disorder that directly affects more than 1 billion individuals worldwide. Available treatment options differ between countries and include acute, preventive, and non-pharmacological therapies. Because of major progress in the understanding of migraine pathogenesis, novel mechanism-based medications have emerged and expanded the armamentarium of treatments. We provide a comprehensive overview of the current standard of care that will enable informed clinical management. First, we discuss the efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile of various pharmacological therapies for acute and preventive treatment of migraine. Second, we review the current knowledge on non-pharmacological therapies, such as neuromodulation and biobehavioural approaches, which can be used for a multidisciplinary approach to clinical management. Third, we emphasise that any effective treatment strategy starts with building a therapeutic plan tailored to individual clinical characteristics, preferences, and needs. Finally, we explore the outlook of emerging mechanism-based treatments that could address unmet challenges in clinical management of migraine.

Lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine

Migraine is a leading cause of morbidity and disability worldwide. Triptans were the first migraine-specific drug class developed and have proven efficacy in treatment of this neurological disease. They are however contraindicated in patients with cardiovascular disease and possibly others, owning to their vasoconstrictive properties. This review will focus on lasmiditan, which has been called the first 'ditan' and 'neurally acting anti-migraine agent', designed to selectively agonize the serotonin 5-HT_1F receptor subtype, providing anti-migraine effects without concomitant vasoconstriction. To date, lasmiditan has proven safe and effective for the acute treatment of migraine in two Phase II and four Phase III trials. Post hoc analysis revealed that the majority of treatment-emergent adverse events were CNS-related, mild-to-moderate in severity and self-limiting. The US FDA label recommends that patients not drive or operate machinery until at least 8 h after taking each dose of lasmiditan.

Efficacy of ubrogepant based on prior exposure and response to triptans: A post hoc analysis

Objective

To determine the potential efficacy of ubrogepant for acute treatment of migraine based on historical experience with triptans.

Background

Although triptans have improved migraine treatment, their efficacy and tolerability may limit their utility in some individuals. Ubrogepant is a small‐molecule, oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine in adults.

Methods

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from the pivotal trials ACHIEVE I and II, identically designed, randomized, double‐blind, phase 3, single‐attack trials of ubrogepant in adults with a history of migraine with/without aura, examined the efficacy and tolerability of ubrogepant 50 mg versus placebo based on participants’ historical experience with triptans: triptan responder, triptan‐insufficient responder, and triptan naïve. Co‐primary efficacy endpoints were pain freedom and absence of most bothersome migraine‐associated symptom (MBS) 2 h post initial dose. Adverse events (AEs) within historical triptan experience subgroups were evaluated.

Results

In the pooled analysis population (n = 1799), 682 (placebo, n = 350; ubrogepant 50 mg, n = 332), 451 (placebo, n = 223; ubrogepant, n = 228), and 666 (placebo, n = 339; ubrogepant, n = 327) participants were triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve, respectively. Response rates on co‐primary efficacy endpoints were higher for ubrogepant versus placebo across all groups. Treatment‐by‐subgroup interaction p values based on odds ratios for pain freedom (p = 0.290) and absence of MBS (p = 0.705) indicated no significant impact of historical triptan experience on ubrogepant efficacy. AE incidence for ubrogepant did not differ appreciably across historical triptan experience subgroups.

Conclusions

Ubrogepant efficacy and tolerability did not differ for the acute treatment of migraine in participants classified as triptan responders, triptan‐insufficient responders, and triptan‐naïve based on their historical experience with triptans.

Rational Use of Lasmiditan for Acute Migraine Treatment in Adults: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

This narrative review provides an update on the research that led to the development of ditans and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine in adults and discusses the potential advantages and disadvantages of lasmiditan in clinical use.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from database inception through January 9, 2021, to identify relevant studies. Search results were assessed for their overall relevance to this review.

FINDINGS

Because part of the effect of the triptans is mediated by the serotonin 1F receptors, which are not present in the smooth muscle, a pure agonist of these receptors, lasmiditan, was developed. Lasmiditan is hypothesized to act on antinociceptive pathways and inhibit the calcitonin gene-related peptide release. Lasmiditan was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019 based on the results of 2 pivotal trials that found a significant difference from placebo in the percentage of patients who achieved freedom from pain and most bothersome symptom at 2 h. The main concern of lasmiditan derives from its central nervous system-related adverse effects, mainly dizziness and paraesthesia, probably attributable to its high blood brain barrier penetration. These central nervous system adverse effects impair driving performance for hours and might be suboptimal for individuals with migraine who want to quickly stop the migraine attack to resume their activities as soon as possible.

IMPLICATIONS

Despite the advantage of being beneficial in the acute treatment of migraine without vasocostrictive action, lasmiditan also presents limitations, in particular the central nervous system adverse effects. Moreover, head-to-head trials against triptans and gepants are indispensable to determine the better option for patients.

Pooled Analysis of PFO Occluder Device Trials in Patients With PFO and Migraine

BACKGROUND

Although observational studies have shown percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure to be a safe means of reducing the frequency and duration of migraine, randomized clinical trials have not met their primary efficacy endpoints.

OBJECTIVES

The authors report the results of a pooled analysis of individual participant data from the 2 randomized trials using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder to assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous device closure as a therapy for episodic migraine with or without aura.

METHODS

The authors analyzed individual patient-level data from 2 randomized migraine trials (the PRIMA [Percutaneous Closure of Patent Foramen Ovale in Migraine With Aura] and PREMIUM [Prospective Randomized Investigation to Evaluate Incidence of Headache Reduction in Subjects with Migraine and PFO Using the Amplatzer PFO Occluder Compared to Medical Management] studies). Efficacy endpoints were mean reduction in monthly migraine days, responder rate (defined as ≥50% reduction in monthly migraine attacks), mean reduction in monthly migraine attacks, and percentage of patients who experienced complete cessation of migraine. The safety endpoint was major procedure- and device-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 337 subjects, 176 were randomized by blocks to device closure and 161 to medical treatment only. At 12-month follow-up, the analysis met 3 of the 4 efficacy endpoints: mean reduction of monthly migraine days (-3.1 days vs. -1.9 days; p = 0.02), mean reduction of monthly migraine attacks (-2.0 vs. -1.4; p = 0.01), and number of subjects who experienced complete cessation of migraine (14 [9%] vs. 1 [0.7%]; p < 0.001). For the safety analysis, 9 procedure-related and 4 device-related adverse events occurred in 245 subjects who eventually received devices. All events were transient and resolved.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis of patient-level data demonstrates that PFO closure was safe and significantly reduced the mean number of monthly migraine days and monthly migraine attacks, and resulted in a greater number of subjects who experienced complete migraine cessation.

Redefining Expectations for Migraine Prevention

With the advent of new preventive migraine treatments, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibodies, there is a need to ensure realistic treatment expectations, and to carefully consider therapeutic options. Current treatment guidelines suggest that reductions in mean monthly headache days of ≥50% from baseline should be considered evidence of treatment efficacy, although in some patients, benefits can be seen at lower thresholds. However, patients may expect greater reductions in migraine attacks, so setting realistic expectations is important for treatment success. As treatment side effects and a lack of efficacy are the main reasons for treatment discontinuation, possible side effects should be discussed, and the individual goals of patients considered. Current American Headache Society guidelines suggest candidacy for preventive migraine treatment is primarily based on the frequency of attacks in the USA, with treatment recommended for patients who have ≥4 migraine days per month. However, even fewer than 4 monthly headache days per month can have a severe impact on overall health-related quality of life in addition to impairment during individual episodes. Finally, the use of acute therapy should be carefully monitored and considered when treatment decisions are being made, to ensure optimization of use, and to avoid overuse and progression to chronic migraine. These considerations indicate that patient needs are multifaceted and that management decisions need to be crafted on a case-by-case basis.

Unmet Needs in Japanese Patients Who Report Insufficient Efficacy with Triptans for Acute Treatment of Migraine: Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Data

INTRODUCTION

Migraine attacks notably impact people's daily lives, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and ability to work. Triptans are widely used as acute medication for a migraine attack but are ineffective, poorly tolerated, or contraindicated in some patients. HRQoL and work productivity are therefore likely to pose particular problems for patients whose migraine attacks do not respond sufficiently to triptan acute treatment. This real-world study aimed to determine whether migraine-related HRQoL, disability, and work productivity differed between triptan insufficient responders (TIRs) and sufficient responders (TSRs) receiving this acute treatment for migraine in Japan.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 2017 Adelphi Migraine Disease Specific Programme cross-sectional survey data collected from physicians and their consulting patients with migraine in Japan. Patients had to be receiving a triptan as their sole acute prescribed medication for migraine. TIRs were defined as patients who achieved headache pain freedom within 2 h of taking triptan acute treatment in no more than three of five migraine attacks. Differences in outcomes between TIRs and TSRs were examined in adjusted analyses using a multivariable general linear model.

RESULTS

Of 200 patients receiving a triptan as their sole prescribed acute treatment for migraine, 88 (44.0%) were classed as TIRs. Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire scores were significantly lower-indicating poorer HRQoL-among TIRs than TSRs, as were mean EuroQol 5-dimension utility and visual analog scale scores (p < 0.05 for comparisons). TIRs also reported significantly (p ≤ 0.003) greater impairment than TSRs across all Work Productivity and Activity Impairment domains, with the exception of work time missed. Migraine disability was higher among TIRs than TSRs.

CONCLUSION

Migraine attacks had a negative impact on the HRQoL, disability, and work productivity of people with migraine in Japan reporting insufficient efficacy with acute triptan treatment, highlighting the need for more effective acute treatment options.

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

INTRODUCTION

Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation.

METHODS

A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans.

RESULTS

Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.