The Pharmacological Treatment of Migraine in Brazil

One-Year and Five-Year Outcomes in Medication Overuse Headache: A Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Medication overuse headache (MOH) is one of the global health-related problems that imposes significant morbidity. Effective management requires the abrupt cessation of the overused medications, transition therapy in the initial days, and initiation of preventive treatment. The objective of this study is to provide one-year and five-year follow-ups of study participants diagnosed with chronic migraine and MOH. The study will examine the efficacy of withdrawal therapy, the use of conventional preventive medication, and the use of anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (anti-CGRP) monoclonal antibodies.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a single-center, prospective, and descriptive study at a tertiary center in Brazil. The population was included by convenience sampling of consecutive subjects diagnosed with chronic migraine and MOH. Demographics and clinical data at baseline and one-year and five-year follow-ups were collected in the clinical records.

RESULTS

Among 142 subjects, 116 were females and 26 were males, with a mean age of 42.1±14.3. They were followed for five years. The diagnosis was performed at the mean age of 24.9±14.7 years after the headache onset, and the time with headache ≥15 days per month was 6.3±7.6 years. On baseline, the average number of headache days per month (HDM) was 25.2±5.9. There was a reduction in HDM. At one-year and five-year follow-ups, a ≥75% reduction in HDM was observed, respectively, in 51.4% and 70.4% of the sample.

CONCLUSIONS

The five-year follow-up of chronic migraine and MOH treated with the discontinuation of excessive medication, the use of preventative pharmacological agents, and the optional inclusion of anti-CGRP pathway monoclonal antibody led to a significant decrease in the initial occurrence of HDM.

Medication Overuse Headache, Chronic Migraine and Monoclonal Antibodies Anti-CGRP: A Real-World Study

OBJECTIVE

Medication overuse headache (MOH) in chronic migraineurs may be a cause or consequence of the overuse of symptomatic medications for headache attacks. It is highly prevalent in tertiary centers. We compared the efficacy of 3 anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies with traditional pharmacological agents in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and MOH.

METHODS

A randomized, cross-sectional, prospective, and open trial with real-world comparison groups was carried out. The sample consisted of 100 consecutive patients having CM and MOH.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients (65 women and 23 men) were included in the study and divided into 4 groups: those having used erenumab (19.3%), galcanezumab (29.6%), fremanezumab (25%) and conventional medications, and the control group (26.1%). Ages ranged from 18 to 78 years (mean, 44.1 ± 13.6 years). In the 6 months of follow-up, there was a significant reduction in the number of headache days in the 3 groups when compared with the control ( P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The small number of patients included in each group and the open design do not allow definitive conclusions, but the use of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies in patients with CM and MOH may result in lessening the number of headache days when compared with conventional treatment with drugs.

Monoclonal antibodies for chronic migraine and medication overuse headache: A real-world study

Background

Medication-overuse headache is highly prevalent in tertiary care centers. It may be a cause or consequence of the overuse of symptomatic medications for migraine attacks.

Objective

We aimed to compare the efficacy of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) added to conventional pharmacological treatments in patients with chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH).

Methods

A cross-sectional, prospective, randomized, open study with real-world comparison groups of patients was carried out. The sample consisted of 200 patients with CM and MOH, who received the same approach to withdraw overused medications, started preventative treatment, and either did or did not receive mAbs.

Results

A total of 172 patients (126 women and 46 men) were included in the study and divided into two groups: group one consisting of 58 patients (control) and group two of 114 patients who used mAbs added to conventional pharmacological agents. The mean age was 44.1 ± 13.6 years, ranging from 18 to 78 years. In the 3 months follow-up after starting the treatment, both groups presented headache frequency reduction, but those with monoclonal antibodies had a significantly higher reduction in the number of headache days and symptomatic medication intake when compared to the control (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The addition of an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody to the treatment for medication overuse headaches in chronic migraineurs may result in decreasing headache frequency and symptomatic medication use when compared to conventional treatments with drugs.

Burden of migraine in Brazil: A cross-sectional real-world study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the burden and consequences of migraine in Brazil in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work productivity and daily activities, and healthcare resource utilization (HRU).

BACKGROUND

Despite existing data on how migraine affects populations worldwide, there are limited data on the burden of migraine in Latin America.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used patient-reported data from the 2018 Brazil National Health and Wellness Survey. HRQoL scores (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level [EQ-5D-5L]; 36-item Short Form Health Survey, version 2 [SF-36v2]; and Short Form 6-dimension [SF-6D]), impairments to work productivity and daily activities (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire), and all-cause HRU were compared between migraine respondents and matched non-migraine controls.

RESULTS

Of the 12,000 total respondents in the survey database, 1643 self-reported a physician diagnosis of migraine and were propensity score matched 1:1 with controls without migraine. HRQoL was lower in patients with migraine versus non-migraine controls, with significantly lower SF-36v2 physical (mean [± SD] 50.3 [7.5] vs. 52.0 [7.6]) and mental component (mean [± SD] 42.9 [10.2] vs. 46.0 [9.9]) summary scores and SF-6D (mean [± SD] 0.7 [0.1] vs. 0.7 [0.1]) and EQ-5D-5L (mean [± SD] 0.7 [0.2] vs. 0.8 [0.2]) utility scores (all p < 0.001). Patients with migraine reported higher levels of work productivity loss (mean [± SD], 40.6% [31.4%] vs. 28.6% [30.9%], including absenteeism 12.8% [19.1%] vs. 8.4% [17.1%] and presenteeism 35.0% [28.7%] vs. 24.8% [28.0%]; all p < 0.001); activity impairment (mean [± SD] 36.0% [28.8%] vs. 25.5% [28.1%]; p < 0.001); and significantly higher HRU in the past 6 months (healthcare provider and emergency department visits [mean [± SD] 7.2 [9.5] vs. 4.5 [6.3] and 1.7 [3.8] vs. 0.9 [2.2]; both p < 0.001] and hospitalizations [mean [± SD] 0.4 [2.7] vs. 0.2 [1.1]; p = 0.002]) than controls.

CONCLUSION

Migraine is associated with poorer HRQoL, higher all-cause HRU, and greater activity impairment and work productivity loss versus non-migraine controls in Brazil.

Why are CGRP monoclonal antibodies not yet the first line treatment in migraine prevention?

Migraine is a prevalent disorder and a cause of high disability, influenced by modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Comorbid and psychiatric illnesses are prevalent in migraine patients and should be considered when choosing preventive drugs. There have been unforeseen problems with the use of preventive treatment of migraine with oral drugs, mainly due to side-effects that cannot be tolerated and lack of efficacy, leading to high discontinuation rates. Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have shown better tolerance profiles, based on the low dropout rates in clinical trials due to adverse events. First-line therapy is a term most expressed in some medical specialties that adopt standardized protocol treatments and may not be suitable for treating migraine. Regarding efficacy, mAbs don't seem to perform much better than the current prophylactic oral drugs in reduction of monthly migraine days compared to placebo. Monoclonal antibodies against CGRP pathway have been prescribed recently, which raises some concern about their safety in the long term. Only side effects observation will confirm whether CGRP blockade causes susceptibility to severe side-effects, at least to specific subpopulations. CGRP may play a role in regulating uteroplacental blood flow and myometrial and uterine relaxation, as well as blood pressure control, raising the suspicion that its blockade could cause complications during pregnancy. Recent guidelines retain the recommendation of starting preventive treatment of migraine with oral drugs. Both the fact that it is new and costs are the reason why guidelines recommend the prescription of mAbs only after failure of at least two oral drugs.

Migraine: epidemiology and systems of care

Migraine is a neurovascular disorder that affects over 1 billion people worldwide. Its widespread prevalence, and associated disability, have a range of negative and substantial effects not only on those immediately affected but also on their families, colleagues, employers, and society. To reduce this global burden, concerted efforts are needed to implement and improve migraine care that is supported by informed health-care policies. In this Series paper, we summarise the data on migraine epidemiology, including estimates of its very considerable burden on the global economy. First, we present the challenges that continue to obstruct provision of adequate care worldwide. Second, we outline the advantages of integrated and coordinated systems of care, in which primary and specialist care complement and support each other; the use of comprehensive referral and linkage protocols should enable continuity of care between these systems levels. Finally, we describe challenges in low and middle-income countries, including countries with poor public health education, inadequate access to medication, and insufficient formal education and training of health-care professionals resulting in misdiagnosis, mismanagement, and wastage of resources.

Medication-overuse headache. Retrospective comparison of preventive treatments

ABSTRACT Objectives: Medication-overuse headache is commonly seen in tertiary centers. Limited evidence is available regarding treatment. We compared the use of one or two drugs, three drugs, or four pharmacological agents for the prevention of headache. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 149 consecutive patients. Sudden withdrawal and pharmacological prevention with one or more drugs were carried out. Adherence and the decrease of headache frequency of more than 50% were compared after four months between the one or two, three, and four drug groups. Results: There was no difference in adherence (p > 0.6). Headache frequency reduction was shown in 23 (54.8%, one or two drugs), 33 (70%, three drugs) and 11 (55%, four drugs); p = 0.13 and p = 0.98, not significant. There was a tendency towards significance between the one or two drug takers versus the three drug and four drug takers together (p = 0.09). Conclusions: The use of more drugs was not better at improving headache. However, there is the possibility that acting simultaneously on different sites may promote broader modulation and better outcome.

Medication-Overuse Headache: Differences between Daily and Near-Daily Headache Patients

Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is a challenging neurological disease, which brings frustration for sufferers and treating physicians. The patient's lack of adherence and limited treatment evidence are frequent. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome and treatment strategies between consecutive MOH patients with daily and near-daily headache from a tertiary center.

METHODS

Every consecutive patient seen between January and December 2014 with the diagnosis of MOH was included. Psychiatric comorbidities, inability to inform baseline headache frequency, current or previous two-month use of preventive medications, and refusal to sign informed consent were exclusion criteria. The patients were evaluated in thorough initial consultations and divided in two groups based on their baseline headache frequency. The diagnosis and treatment strategies were clearly explained. The filling out of a detailed headache diary was requested from all patients. Endpoints compared headache frequency and adherence after two, four, and eight months between the two study groups.

RESULTS

One-hundred sixty-eight patients (31 male, 137 female) met the inclusion criteria. Nineteen patients (11.3%) were excluded. All patients had migraine or chronic migraine as primary headaches. Eighty had daily (DH), and 69 near-daily headache (NDH), at baseline consultation. Mean baseline frequency was 24.8 headache days/month (18.9 days/month for the near-daily group), average headache history was 20.6 years and mean time with >15 headache days/month was 4.8 years. Outpatient withdrawal, starting prevention, and enforcing the correct use of rescue therapy was carried out with all patients. After two months, 88% of the DH and 71% of the NDH groups adhered to treatment (p = 0.0002). The HF decreased to 12 and 9 headache days/month, respectively in DH and NDH groups (p > 0.05, non-significant) (Intention-to-treat (ITT) 14 DH; 12 NDH; p > 0.05). After four and eight months, 86.3% and 83.7% of the DH patients, and 59.4% and 55% of the NDH patients were still under treatment (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0001). The HF decreased, respectively, to nine and nine headache days/month in the DH patients compared to 6 and 7 headache days/month in the NDH group (p > 0.05) (ITT, 12; 12; DH; 10; 11; NDH; p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although open studies provide limited conclusions, withdrawing overused medications and starting prevention may have helped the favorable outcomes. However, daily headache patients had a significantly higher adherence and lower relapse rates than near-daily headache patients, despite a considerable reduced headache frequency in both groups. Additionally, real-world patient studies are scarce and the comparison between these two subsets of patients may be useful to guide clinicians in approaching their patients. Controlled studies are necessary to confirm these observations.