Adding Additional Acute Medications to a Triptan Regimen for Migraine and Observed Changes in Headache-Related Disability: Results From the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) Study

Multimodal Migraine Management and the Pursuit of Migraine Freedom: A Narrative Review

Migraine is a neurologic disease with a complex pathophysiology that can be controlled with current treatment options but not cured. Therefore, treatment expectations are highly variable. The concept of migraine freedom was recently introduced and can mean different things, with some, for example, expecting complete freedom from headache and associated symptoms and others accepting the occasional migraine attack if it does not impact functioning. Therefore, migraine management should be optimized so that patients can have the best opportunity to achieve their optimal treatment goals. With migraine freedom as a goal and, given the complex pathophysiology of migraine and the high incidence of comorbidities among individuals with migraine, treatment with a single modality may be insufficient, as it may not achieve migraine freedom in those with more frequent or disabling attacks. In this clinical perspective article, we have identified four key, partially overlapping principles of multimodal migraine treatment: (1) manage common comorbidities; (2) control modifiable risk factors for progression by addressing medication and caffeine overuse; (3) diagnose and treat secondary causes of headache, if present; and (4) individualize acute and preventive treatments to minimize pain, functional disability, and allodynia. There are many barriers to pursuing migraine freedom, and strategies to overcome them should be optimized. Migraine freedom should be an aspirational goal both at the individual attack level and for the disease overall. We believe that a comprehensive and multimodal approach that addresses all barriers people with migraine face could move patients closer to migraine freedom.

Migraine Outcome Should Not Be Used to Determine Diagnosis, Severity, and Therapy: Moving Towards a Multiparametric Definition of Chronicity

Chronic migraine (CM) diagnosis is nowadays based on the threshold of 15 headache days/month for three consecutive months, of which at least eight have migraine headache features. In recent years, proposals for reducing the threshold to 8 days/month have been proposed. The sole frequency parameter, however, is partial considering the variability in frequency, pain severity, associated symptoms, such as nausea, osmophobia, and photophobia, and presence of aura, but also the variable response to treatment and the association with several comorbidities. Therefore, in our opinion, a multiparameter perspective has to be taken into account that considers the underlying pathophysiology, in particular the presence of tension-type-like pain, cutaneous allodynia, and reduced pain threshold. A paradigm change in the definition of chronic migraine moves far beyond the mere 8 vs. 15 days/month, but has ethical and practical implications for treatment: should patients be treated with the most effective prophylactic drugs, i.e., monoclonal antibodies (MABs), if they enter into a new definition of CM? How should clinicians deal with treatment escalation towards MABs? What is the role of associated conditions, response to treatments, lifestyle issues, and psychological factors? And, finally, which endpoint should we use to define effectiveness? Is improvement in headache frequency enough, or should we move towards disability, quality of life, or workplace productivity?

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.

Chronic Migraine Pathophysiology and Treatment: A Review of Current Perspectives

Chronic migraine is a disabling neurological disorder that imposes a considerable burden on individual and socioeconomic outcomes. Chronic migraine is defined as headaches occurring on at least 15 days per month with at least eight of these fulfilling the criteria for migraine. Chronic migraine typically evolves from episodic migraine as a result of increasing attack frequency and/or several other risk factors that have been implicated with migraine chronification. Despite this evolution, chronic migraine likely develops into its own distinct clinical entity, with unique features and pathophysiology separating it from episodic migraine. Furthermore, chronic migraine is characterized with higher disability and incidence of comorbidities in comparison to episodic migraine. While existing migraine studies primarily focus on episodic migraine, less is known about chronic migraine pathophysiology. Mounting evidence on aberrant alterations suggest that pronounced functional and structural brain changes, central sensitization and neuroinflammation may underlie chronic migraine mechanisms. Current treatment options for chronic migraine include risk factor modification, acute and prophylactic therapies, evidence-based treatments such as onabotulinumtoxinA, topiramate and newly approved calcitonin gene-related peptide or receptor targeted monoclonal antibodies. Unfortunately, treatments are still predominantly ineffective in aborting migraine attacks and decreasing intensity and frequency, and poor adherence and compliance with preventative medications remains a significant challenge. Novel emerging chronic migraine treatments such as neuromodulation offer promising therapeutic approaches that warrant further investigation. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an update of current knowledge and perspectives regarding chronic migraine background, pathophysiology, current and emerging treatment options with the intention of facilitating future research into this debilitating and largely indeterminant disorder.

The American Headache Society Consensus Statement: Update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

To incorporate recent research findings, expert consensus, and patient perspectives into updated guidance on the use of new acute and preventive treatments for migraine in adults.

BACKGROUND

The American Headache Society previously published a Consensus Statement on the use of newly introduced treatments for adults with migraine. This update, which is based on the expanded evidence base and emerging expert consensus concerning postapproval usage, provides practical recommendations in the absence of a formal guideline.

METHODS

This update involved four steps: (1) review of data about the efficacy, safety, and clinical use of migraine treatments introduced since the previous Statement was published; (2) incorporation of these data into a proposed update; (3) review and commentary by the Board of Directors of the American Headache Society and patients and advocates associated with the American Migraine Foundation; (4) consideration of these collective insights and integration into an updated Consensus Statement.

RESULTS

Since the last Consensus Statement, no evidence has emerged to alter the established principles of either acute or preventive treatment. Newly introduced acute treatments include two small-molecule calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists (ubrogepant, rimegepant); a serotonin (5-HT1F ) agonist (lasmiditan); a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (celecoxib oral solution); and a neuromodulatory device (remote electrical neuromodulation). New preventive treatments include an intravenous anti-CGRP ligand monoclonal antibody (eptinezumab). Several modalities, including neuromodulation (electrical trigeminal nerve stimulation, noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation, single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation) and biobehavioral therapy (cognitive behavioral therapy, biofeedback, relaxation therapies, mindfulness-based therapies, acceptance and commitment therapy) may be appropriate for either acute and/or preventive treatment; a neuromodulation device may be appropriate for acute migraine treatment only (remote electrical neuromodulation).

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of new treatments into clinical practice should be informed by the potential for benefit relative to established therapies, as well as by the characteristics and preferences of individual patients.

Mapping Assessments Instruments for Headache Disorders against the ICF Biopsychosocial Model of Health and Disability

Headache disorders have a strong impact on sufferers’ lives. However, the “content” of assessment instruments addressing concepts, such as disability and quality of life (QoL), has not comprehensively been addressed. We searched SCOPUS for research papers in which outcome measures were used in adult populations of patients with migraine, tension-type headache (TTH), and cluster headache (CH). The content of single instruments was then mapped against the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. A total of 150 papers and 26 instruments were included: 15 addressed disability or impact, two addressed work-related difficulties, and nine addressed QoL. Few instruments were commonly used across the conditions and covered domains of functioning were impact on daily life activities, homework, school, and work-related tasks, leisure time, informal and family relations, pain, emotional difficulties, energy level, and impulse control. Most of the research is based on instruments that were developed for migraine, which is critical for CH, and the impact of headache disorders on work-related activities is poorly acknowledged. Further research is needed to expand the scope of headaches impact on daily life activities, and on environmental factors relevant to headache disorders to raise knowledge on the less represented areas, e.g., TTH impact.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with migraine with potentially adequate and insufficient triptan response

Background

Triptans are the most commonly prescribed acute treatments for migraine; however, not all triptan users experience adequate response. Information on real-world resource use and costs associated with triptan insufficient response are limited.

Methods

A retrospective claims analysis using US commercial health plan data between 2012 and 2015 assessed healthcare resource use and costs in adults with a migraine diagnosis newly initiating triptans. Patients who either did not refill triptans but used other non-triptan medications or refilled triptans but also filled non-triptan medications over a 24-month follow-up period were designated as potential triptan insufficient responders. Patients who continued filling only triptans (i.e. triptan-only continuers) were designated as potential adequate responders. All-cause and migraine-related resource use and total (medical and pharmacy) costs over months 1–12 and months 13–24 were compared between triptan-only continuers and potential triptan insufficient responders.

Results

Among 10,509 new triptan users, 4371 (41%) were triptan-only continuers, 3102 (30%) were potential triptan insufficient responders, and 3036 (29%) did not refill their index triptan or fill non-triptan medications over 24 months’ follow-up. Opioids were the most commonly used non-triptan treatment (68%) among potential triptan insufficient responders over 24 months of follow-up. Adjusted mean all-cause and migraine-related total costs were $5449 and $2905 higher, respectively, among potential triptan insufficient responders versus triptan-only continuers over the first 12 months.

Conclusions

In a US commercial health plan, almost one-third of new triptan users were potential triptan insufficient responders and the majority filled opioid prescriptions. Potential triptan insufficient responder patients had significantly higher all-cause and migraine-related healthcare utilization and costs than triptan-only continuers.

Response to BotulinumtoxinA in a migraine cohort with multiple comorbidities and widespread pain

BACKGROUND

The phase III research evaluating migraine prophylaxis therapy (PREEMPT) protocol was developed in low-risk migraine patients. We studied longitudinal response to treatment in a sequential retrospective observational cohort to evaluate predictors of effectiveness in patients with multiple overlapping pain syndromes treated in a quaternary pain management clinic.

METHODS

We evaluated indicators of individual response in 402 consecutive chronic migraine patients who provided demographic information and used the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry.

RESULTS

The patients were middle aged 47 (38-56) median (IQR) years old and 83% women. They reported multiple complex pain problems with 11 (6-18) regions represented on a pain body map. Evaluated with National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures, they reported higher scores for sleep impairment and disturbance, anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain behavior, pain interference and worse function and satisfaction with social roles compared with the general US population; p<0.001 for all domains. Within 120 days of treatment, 62% of patients reported reduced headache frequency. The best multivariable model developed for prediction of reduced headache frequency in response to treatment included lower treatment number, lower pain interference score, and less depression (p=0.001, 0.002, and 0.009). Depression may have been an obstacle to successful treatment; there was no association between depression score and number of treatments (p=0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the importance of identifying and addressing pain interference and depression early in chronic migraine management and, more broadly, highlights the importance of multidisciplinary evaluation and treatment in chronic migraine.

STOP 101: A Phase 1, Randomized, Open-Label, Comparative Bioavailability Study of INP104, Dihydroergotamine Mesylate (DHE) Administered Intranasally by a I123 Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD® ) Device, in Healthy Adult Subjects

OBJECTIVE

Investigate the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of INP104, intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) administered via a Precision Olfactory Delivery (POD^® ) device, (Impel NeuroPharma, Seattle, WA) vs intravenous (IV) DHE and DHE nasal spray (Migranal^® ) in healthy adult subjects.

METHODS

This was a Phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, 3-period, 3-way crossover study. Subjects received a single dose of A) INP104 1.45 mg (a drug-device combination product composed of DHE and the I123 POD device); B) DHE 45^® Injection (IV) 1.0 mg; and C) DHE by Migranal^® Nasal Spray 2.0 mg. Plasma levels of DHE and the major bioactive metabolite, 8'OH-DHE, were measured, and PK parameters were determined for both. Comparative bioavailability (BA) was assessed by calculating the ratio of the geometric means between treatments for C_max and AUC_0-inf on the ln-transformed data. Safety was assessed from adverse events, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and clinical laboratory values.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled, 36 were dosed with at least 1 IP and 27 were included in the evaluation of PK and comparative BA. DHE plasma levels following INP104 1.45 mg administration reached 93% of C_max by 20 minutes and were comparable to IV DHE 1.0 mg by 30 minutes (1219 ng/mL for INP104 vs 1224 ng/mL for IV DHE), which was the T_max for INP104. From 30 minutes onward, DHE levels for INP104 closely matched those of IV DHE to 48 hours, the last time point measured. In comparison, the C_max for Migranal was 299.6 pg/mL (approximately 4-fold less than INP104) and occurred at 47 minutes, 17 minutes later than INP104. Plasma DHE AUC_0-inf were 6275, 7490, and 2199 h*pg/mL for INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively. Variability (coefficient of variation [CV%]) for C_max and AUC_0-inf for INP104 compared to Migranal indicated more consistent delivery with INP104. In the BA comparison using the PK population (subjects who had received all 3 treatments), the ratios of geometric means (percent) for C_max and AUC_0-inf were 7.9% and 74.2%, respectively, for INP104: IV DHE, and 445% and 308% for INP104: Migranal. Mean plasma concentration profiles for 8'-OH-DHE were proportionately lower and followed a similar profile to the parent compound, regardless of route of administration (IN vs IV) or delivery system (Migranal vs INP104). Treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs), of mostly mild intensity, were reported by 15/31 (48.4%), 21/32 (65.6%), and 14/34 (41.2%) subjects after INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively. Treatment-related TEAEs occurred in 6/31 (19.4%), 16/32 (50.0%), and 4/34 (11.8%) subjects after INP104, IV DHE, and Migranal, respectively.

CONCLUSION

INP104 met the predefined statistical criteria for comparative bioavailability with IV DHE and Migranal. The shorter time to reach C_max and at 4 times the plasma concentration of DHE in comparison to Migranal combined with a favorable tolerability profile support further investigation of INP104 as an effective, well tolerated, and non-invasive treatment for acute episodic migraine.

Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial

BACKGROUND

The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication.

METHODS

Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation.

RESULTS

A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine: The randomized PRESTO study

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial.

Methods

A total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes.

Results

nVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeated-measures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120 minutes and was safe and well-tolerated.

Conclusion

This randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT02686034.

Classification of evidence

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 hours poststimulation (absolute difference 13.2%).

Diclofenac potassium for oral solution (CAMBIA®) in the acute management of a migraine attack: clinical evidence and practical experience

Migraine headache affects about 12% of Western populations and is the third most common disease worldwide (sixth in terms of disability). In 1993, triptans were introduced in the United States as a new treatment for managing migraine attacks, but their use is limited by lack of response and safety concerns in some patients. Treatment options for patients with migraine who fail or cannot tolerate triptans include switching to another medication or adding an adjunctive medication. Desirable characteristics reported by patients for acute treatment of migraine attacks include complete pain relief, fast onset of action, and no pain recurrence. Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication that has been established as effective for acute treatment of migraine by the American Headache Society based on available evidence. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is rapidly absorbed, achieving maximal plasma concentrations in 15 min, which coincides with a rapid onset of effect. In a comparison of diclofenac potassium for oral solution with diclofenac potassium tablets, the solution achieved a significant reduction in headache intensity beginning at 15 min compared with 60 min for the tablet. Across randomized clinical trials, approximately 25% of patients were pain free 2 h after administration of diclofenac oral solution and the effects were maintained over a 24-h period. Diclofenac potassium for oral solution is well tolerated; the most common adverse events are dizziness and gastrointestinal complaints, with incidences similar to placebo. No serious adverse events have been reported in clinical trials of diclofenac potassium for oral solution in the acute treatment of migraine. Diclofenac oral solution may offer rapid and sustained pain relief for patients who do not achieve pain resolution with other medications. In addition, patients who experience central sensitization with allodynia may benefit from the cyclooxygenase-blocking activity of diclofenac, which is needed in this advanced phase of migraine.

Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs for Symptomatic Treatment of Episodic Headache

INTRODUCTION

Primary headaches have high epidemiologic impact but their symptomatic treatment often remains problematic. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently used, but their modality of employment and efficacy/differential efficacy are highly variable. This study investigated current NSAID use for episodic headache at an Italian headache center (January 2000 to February 2013).

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation was performed on 6,443 patient records: migraine (n = 2,330), tension-type headache (TTH; n = 807), and migraine plus TTH (n = 3,306).

RESULTS

Among migraine patients, 80% had used NSAIDs in the past year. Preferences were: nimesulide (57%), ketoprofen (25%), and ibuprofen (24%); complete efficacy was significantly higher than incomplete/absent efficacy (P < 0.0001). NSAIDs were replaced with triptans in 53% of patients at first visit; after 1 year there was a spontaneous significant return to NSAIDs (56%; P < 0.0005). Among TTH patients, 90% were NSAID users; preferences were: nimesulide (48%), ketoprofen (47%), and diclofenac (19%), with significantly higher complete vs. incomplete/absent efficacy (nimesulide and ketoprofen, P < 0.02). Replacement with analgesics was performed in 24% of patients; after 1 year, there was a 29% return to NSAIDs. Among migraine plus TTH patients, 89% were NSAID users. Preferences were: nimesulide (44%), ibuprofen (42%), and ketoprofen (38%), with significantly higher complete vs. incomplete/absent efficacy (0.001 < P < 0.0001). Replacement with analgesics was performed in 31% of patients; after 1 year, there was a 37% return to NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in headache was higher than could be hypothesized based on guidelines, with NSAID preferences not entirely coinciding with international recommendations. This outcome suggests the need for greater awareness of all treatment options in headache by both patients and physicians.